pages
2,990 rows where body = "PlanningBoard"
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: page
date (date) >30 ✖
- 2005-02-28 26
- 2007-03-26 25
- 2005-06-13 24
- 2005-06-27 24
- 2008-06-23 23
- 2012-03-12 23
- 2006-11-13 22
- 2008-08-11 21
- 2021-07-26 21
- 2005-01-10 20
- 2005-08-22 20
- 2006-07-24 20
- 2006-10-23 19
- 2007-09-24 18
- 2012-02-27 18
- 2021-04-26 18
- 2021-07-12 18
- 2005-05-23 17
- 2006-09-25 17
- 2007-05-29 17
- 2008-04-28 17
- 2008-12-08 17
- 2005-01-24 16
- 2005-09-29 16
- 2006-04-24 16
- 2007-01-08 16
- 2007-03-12 16
- 2005-02-14 15
- 2006-02-27 15
- 2006-12-11 15
- …
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Monday, January 10, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CONVENE: 7:08 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Mr. Lynch 3. ROLL CALL: President Cunningham, Cook, Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara and Piziali. Board Member Mariani was not present for roll call, and arrived during Item 9-A. Also present were Planning & Building Director Greg Fuz, Development Review Manager Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner II Dennis Brighton. 4. MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of December 13, 2004. Vice President Cook noted that page 14, paragraph 2, should be changed to read: "She noted that in past site visits to walled-off developments, that the-play yards were was deserted, which she believed was unsafe for anyone who did use the area." Vice President Cook noted that page 14, paragraph 5, should be changed to read: " showers for use after swimming, and should open onto the pool area. She believed that the multitude of angular pathways of the landscape plan seemed very frenetic to her. She did not believe there was a sense of continuity and flow with respect to the landscaping and circulation plan." Ms. Kohlstrand advised that page 12, paragraph 7, should be changed to read: "She was disappointed to see a wall along across-Appezzato Parkway. " Ms. Kohlstrand advised that pages 17-18 did not indicate the details of the discussion about the reflectivity of the glass, and noted that she inquired as to whether the reflective glass was required functionally for the project; the project sponsor indicated that it was not required. In addition, the conditions of approval included a recommendation that there would be no reflective glass on the building. President Cunningham advised that on page 1, the roll call should indicate "President Cunningham," rather than President Piziali. President Cunningham advised that page 15, paragraph 5, should be changed to reflect that he urged the developer to respond to the comments made by the Planning Board in an effort to clarify… | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 2 | M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of December 13, 2004, as amended. AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Lynch) 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: President Cunningham advised that no speaker slips had been received for Item 9-C, and proposed that it be moved to the Consent Calendar. M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 9-C from the Regular Agenda and to place it on the Consent Calendar. AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None. 7. Resolution and Commendation for Planning and Building Director Gregory L. Fuz. President Cunningham noted that Mr. Fuz had accepted a position as Development Services Director for El Dorado County, and would be leaving the City of Alameda. He read the following resolution and commendation into the record: "Acknowledging Planning and Building Director Gregory L. Fuz for his contributions to the City of Alameda, whereas Gregory L. Fuz accepted the position of Planning and Building Director for the City of Alameda on February 25, 2002, and Whereas Gregory L. Fuz has accepted a position as the Development Services Director of El Dorado County, and is leaving the employment of the City of Alameda, and Whereas, as Planning and Building Director, he assisted in the planning process of numerous projects, including the completion of the General Plan Amendment for Alameda Point, and initiation of the Master Planning Process, the adoption and conditional certification of the 2001-2006 Housing Element, redevelopment of the Bridgeside and South Shore shopping centers, adoption of new Citywide design guidelines and development code amendments, and Whereas he provided clear and complete advice to the Planning Board, and Now therefore be it resolved that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda extends their thanks for his dedication to his work on behalf of the City, his staff, and citizens of Alameda." President Cunningham added a personal note of thanks to Mr. Fuz for his work on behalf of the City. Pla… | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 3 | Mr. Fuz thanked the Board, and said that it was his pleasure to serve the community of Alameda, and that it had been a wonderful experience. He thanked the members of the community that he worked with. He thanked the Board for its dedication and professionalism, and added that it was the best Board he had ever worked with in more than 20 years in the field. He thanked the Planning and Building Department staff for their help, expertise and professionalism, and for making his tenure pleasant and successful. Vice President Cook thanked Mr. Fuz and noted that she had looked forward to working with him for a longer time. She noted that she would miss working with him, and added that she admired his unflappable nature and his ability to maintain calm and a sense of humor. She added that his analytical mind enabled him to accomplish so much during his tenure. Mr. Lynch looked forward to working with Mr. Fuz whenever the chance arose in El Dorado County, and said that Alameda was a much better place for his work in the City. He noted that Mr. Fuz set a positive tone for the City's professional representatives Planning Board Minutes Page 3 January 10, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 4 | 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: 8-A. Adoption of 2005 Planning Board Calendar. M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt the 2005 Planning Board Calendar. AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 4 January 10, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 5 | 8-B. ZC04-0013: Christ Episcopal Church of Alameda - 1700 Santa Clara Avenue (DB). A request has been received to construct a 38-niche columbarium wall within the interior of the Christ Episcopal Church. Columbarium use is not specifically listed as a regulated use within the R-5 (General Residential Zoning District) where the church is located. This zoning determination for the installation of a 38-niche columbarium within one interior wall of the church is being referred to the Planning Board to review the staff recommendation that the primary use remains the church use and the columbarium will be secondary to the primary use. M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to approve a request to construct a 38-niche columbarium wall within the interior of the Christ Episcopal Church. Columbarium use is not specifically listed as a regulated use within the R-5 (General Residential Zoning District) where the church is located. This zoning determination for the installation of a 38-niche columbarium within one interior wall of the church is being referred to the Planning Board to review the staff recommendation that the primary use remains the church use and the columbarium will be secondary to the primary use. AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 5 January 10, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 6 | 8-C. Review and consider possible modifications of Section 30-15 of the Alameda Municipal Code regulating Work Live Studios (JA). (Continued from the meeting of December 13, 2004.) Staff is requesting a continuance to the Planning Board meeting of January 24, 2005. M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of January 24, 2005. AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 6 January 10, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 7 | 8-D. ZA04-0002 - Zoning Text Amendment for Design Review Regulations (JC/JA). Update the current Design Review practices by clarifying the previously adopted Webster Street Design Review Guidelines. M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-01 to update the current Design Review practices by clarifying the previously adopted Webster Street Design Review Guidelines. AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 7 January 10, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 8 | 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9-A. Study Session (JA/JL). GPA04-0004, DPA04-0002, IS04-0003, DR04-0114 - Warmington Homes - 1270 Marina Village Parkway (Shipways Site) (JA/JL). Applicant requests a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan to designate the Shipways site as MU-7; a Development Plan Amendment to amend the approved Development Plan for a 143,000 square foot office building and permit the construction of 64 residential units with associated parking and landscaping; an Initial Study to address the environmental effects; and a Design Review for the project. The site is zoned M-X, Mixed-Use Planned Development District. Ms. Altschuler summarized this staff report, and noted that the design team would make a PowerPoint presentation. She noted that no Board action would be taken, and that the project would require a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the site an MU-7 (Mixed Use) area. She added that an office use already existed on the site; staff requested the addition of a residential component to the site, as well as an amendment to the development plan. The current development plan approval was for a 143,000 square foot office building; it would be changed from an office use to a residential use. An initial study and a design review for a general configuration of the houses, landscaping and parking areas would be done as well. The staff report requested that the discussion relate to the site design, the parking plan, the pedestrian access through the site, public amenities, amenities for the residence, the conceptual architectural style, and the fact that there was a proposal for three-story dwellings, which is not unusual in this area. She requested that the Board provide guidance to the applicant to bring back with the design team, and to incorporate the Board's comments into the proposal. The proposal would be brought before the Board at a later date for action. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Joan Lamphier, Lamphier Gregory, noted that she worked for the City on this project, and has been … | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 9 | Mr. Kevin Levesque, Randall Planning and Design, displayed a PowerPoint presentation of the site and described the site layout. He noted that there would be in-garage parking and storage for the homeowners, with 55 parking stalls proposed in the garage, and 46 guest parking stalls on the podium. In addition, there would be 72 parking spots in the unit garages. The parking ratio would be 2.7:1. He noted that 86% of the homes would be on the water, with a small group in the center, clustered around the Rec Center and the pool. He noted that at the front, the underground parking would eliminate the need for garages on the podium deck, allowing the creation of a central pedestrian plaza running from the front of the project at the pool, to the back of the project, where the public plaza space would be created. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether the amphitheatre area would be publicly accessible, Mr. Levesque confirmed that it would be accessible at all times. President Cunningham commented about the methodology of building a podium, which would be a complex process, and inquired why the podium would be elevated to accommodate the parking underneath. He noted that the parking on the other two sides could be maximized, and noted that a second podium would probably need to be built. He inquired whether an analysis had been performed to remove the current sloping rampways to sink it back down to grade level. Mr. Parker noted that President Cunningham's suggestion would involve a tremendous amount of demolition. One of their concerns was that the existing Shipway offices were next door, which they planned to keep occupied as office space. The demolition would be very disruptive to the existing uses, and may render the project economically infeasible. Vice President Cook noted in San Francisco, the existing piers were left intact and new so that a new structures were proposed to could be built independent of the existing piers-it. She noted that the cost of removing the old buildings were structures w… | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 10 | Mr. Parker believed the separation worked well, because the entrance into the project was in the middle of the Shipways, and the entrance to the public areas were on either end. He noted that the layout was seamless in relation to the trails, and understood Vice President Cook's concerns. Vice President Cook liked the idea that much of the parking was hidden, either above or below. President Cunningham inquired whether the applicants had considered using vertical circulation between Shipways 1 and 2, and 3 and 4. Mr. Parker replied that they had not examined that option, and that they were focused on creating views onto the water. He believed that idea made sense. In response to Mr. Piziali's question about the flats, Mr. Parker replied that there would be parking on the first floor, then a flat and a flat above it. The units on the large wings of the project on either side had garages included in the plan. Vice President Cook noted that the use of the podium was an urban landform, and noted that high-rises in San Francisco brought the question of whether a blank face along the street would be present. Mr. Parker noted that they used open metal along the façade, and wished to avoid a blank wall. Vice President Cook suggested the use of interpretive signage or public art to provide more information for the public. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara for more detail on the amenities for the residents, Mr. Parker replied that there would be a community building with a pool and a whirlpool. President Cunningham appreciated the conceptual drawings, and believed that a three- dimensional model would enable the Board to better understand the intent of the architecture. Mr. Piziali agreed with President Cunningham's request for a three-dimensional model. Ms. Kohlstrand concurred with Mr. Piziali's comments, and would like a better idea of the orientation of the residential units, as well as the landscaping treatment and how the podium wall would be softened. She also believed that a residential use was fine for thi… | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 11 | consistent. She wanted to ensure that the parking requirements were consistent, and inquired where the public would park in order to use the public access area of the amphitheatre. Mr. Levesque responded that the office building parking lots on either side of the Shipways were virtually vacant during the weekends. He added that reserved parking stalls for the public were also located in the parking lots, and that quite a few spaces were available in the office parking lots. President Cunningham inquired whether any potential uses had been considered for the bodies of water between the fingers. Mr. Levesque replied that they had not looked at the ability to get access in that area yet. He noted that the concrete structure was essentially one big block, and displayed the area on the screen. He noted that a retaining wall would be built and filled in to provide the lawn area in front of the residential units. Ms. McNamara noted that she did not see any railings, and inquired whether there were any plans to install them along the waterfront. Mr. Parker confirmed there would be safety railings installed along the entire perimeter. Vice President Cook believed a site tour would be very helpful on this project. In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the schedule for this project, Mr. Parker replied that they would like to enter the housing market in its current condition and that they hoped to meet a timely schedule. He noted that this was a complex site to work with regarding cost and structural issues. He encouraged the Board members to visit the site. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand, Ms. Altschuler replied that there was currently no requirement for guest parking in the Zoning Ordinance, and that there was a requirement for two spaces for each unit. She added that the 0.7 parking ratio was slightly larger than most projects the Board has approved over the last 15 years; the guest parking ratio is normally 0.5. Mr. Parker advised that they viewed the parking as being self-contained wit… | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 12 | 9-B. ZA04-0001-Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide. Review and revision of Section 30-6 of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), Sign Regulations (JS/JA). The purpose of this amendment is to clarify current regulations and establish internal consistency with various sections of the AMC with the primary focus on regulations pertaining to Window Signs. Mr. Cormack summarized the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, PSBA, noted that they wanted the district to look as attractive as possible during the revitalization process. PSBA did not want businesses jamming their windows with posters obscuring the business, and which made the storefronts look junky. He expressed concern about the proliferation of grand opening signs, and the length of time that they are left up. He believed this ordinance would put an end to that practice. He noted that PSBA and WABA were in agreement that a grand opening would last 30 days, and that a permit would be necessary for that signage to remain up. He supported the Planning Board's recommendation to the City Council to enact this ordinance. Ms. Sherry Stieg, WABA, supported the proposed ordinance, and noted that it was the result of a lengthy collaboration between PSBA, WABA and the Planning & Building Department. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali regarding enforcement, Mr. Cormack confirmed that the Code Enforcement Division would be responsible. There was currently one full- time Code Enforcement officer, and a planner working part-time in that capacity. He noted that the Planning and Building Department made a commitment to PSBA and WABA for increased enforcement along Park Street and Webster Street and the revised ordinance would assist with that effort. Mr. Piziali believed that the merchants would police themselves. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding window signs, Mr. Cormack replied that a business would be in conformance provided no more than 25% of the wind… | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,13 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 13 | AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 13 January 10, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 14 | 9-C. Use Permit, UP04-0012/Major Design Review, DR04-0099; Tasha Skinner, Tetra Tech, Inc. For the Alameda Unified School District (Will C. Wood Middle School), 420 Grand Street (DB). The applicant requests a Use Permit and Major Design Review to install twelve cellular telecommunication antennae (4-foot panel antennas) to be located around the top of the school building at the top perimeter/parapet, plus the installation of a utility shed at the rear of the building. A Use Permit is required by AMC, Section 30-4.1(b)(3) for approval of above-ground utility installations for local service in an R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 9-C from the Regular Agenda and to place it on the Consent Calendar. AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-02 to approve a Use Permit and Major Design Review to install twelve cellular telecommunication antennae (4-foot panel antennas) to be located around the top of the school building at the top perimeter/parapet, plus the installation of a utility shed at the rear of the building. A Use Permit is required by AMC, Section 30-4.1(b)(3) for approval of above-ground utility installations for local service in an R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 14 January 10, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,15 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 15 | 9-D. Design Review, DR04-0014: Linda Cortez, 1514 Pacific Avenue. Ms. Cortez is appealing staff's denial of this Major Design Review application (DB). This application requesting design review approval to raise the existing building one foot, six inches (1'-6") and relocate the building two feet (2'-0") toward the south (rear) property line to accommodate the elongation of the front stair. The proposal to raise the building will create approximately 1,618 square feet of new living space in the basement, resulting in a total completed conditioned floor area of approximately 3,236 square feet. Staff denied this project because of the following reasons: 1. The proposal to raise the building approximately one foot, six inches exceeds the proportionality relative to the upper and lower floors (i.e., Golden Mean) by three feet, three inches (3'-3"); 2. The proposal will create an undesirable massing of the building in relation to neighboring buildings which appear to be of the same design; and 3. The proposal will elongate the front stair and create an undesirable massing of the stair in relation to the building. The site is located within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. Mr. Brighton summarized the staff report, and noted that the appellants had not presented any new information since the last hearing when the Board had provided general parking direction on implementation of proportionality issue, (i.e. the Golden Mean) during Design Review. Staff recommended that the Board uphold the original denial of the Major Design Review. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Linda Cortez, appellant, 1514 Pacific Avenue, noted that they were attempting to preserve their house and maintain the inherent architecture of the house during the remodeling process. Although raising of the house did not conform to the Golden Mean, she did not believe it would change or detract from the inherent architecture of the house in a perceptible manner. She noted that the two adjoining houses next to her house were not identical to … | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 16 | Mr. Walter McQuesten, 1416 Pacific Avenue, supported the applicant's project, and believed their plans would be an improvement for the entire block. He noted that he hoped to undertake a similar project in the future. He believed the raising of the house would provide safety from flooding. He supported the reversal of staff's denial. Mr. Richard Rutter noted that he was an architect, and supported staff's denial of this application. He noted that in the past, neighbors came to agreements regarding roof lines and design proportions. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali, Mr. Rutter replied that 16 stairs were the limit before a landing must be included, and that the applicants were not close to that limit. Ms. Janelle Spatz, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, spoke in support of staff's recommendation. AAPS believed that staff's points were valid, and that in the past contractor Ken Gutlaben had spoken before the Planning Board to say that digging down was as easy as building up. She believed that should suffice for this project, and believed the applicants' plans would be visually disruptive. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara whether the neighboring house had a full unit on the basement level, Mr. Brighton replied that he did not have that information. He addressed the simple aesthetics of the structures, and the future use of the interior was not part of the decision. Ms. McNamara noted that there was more than one separate address on the neighboring home. Ms. McNamara expressed concern that this house was used in the Planning Board's discussion of the Golden Mean; this existing architecture already exceeds the Golden Mean by a significant amount. She was concerned about imposing the Golden Mean on this applicant given the existing architecture, and did not believe that was the applicants' fault. Vice President Cook did not believe there was a reason to make the architecture proportionality worse, and believed the number of existing houses e… | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,17 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 17 | Gutlaben's assessment that going down for the additional square footage would be workable and cost-effective. President Cunningham noted that the design guidelines utilized the Golden Mean to aid staff in regulating houses being raised. Ms. McNamara inquired whether the Board would issue a blanket rejection, or to use the Golden Mean in a case-by-case assessment. President Cunningham noted that context in the buildings was very important in order to preserve the character of Alameda. He believed that the number of houses being raised was beginning to erode that character. He did not believe the Board would issue blanket rejections. Mr. Lynch believed that excavating down would be a workable solution for the applicants, and believed there was a difference between how the Board applied the Golden Mean as a guideline for individual homes. He noted that for the other individuals who spoke, he would examine every case separately, and would not issue a blanket rejection. M/S Mariani/Cook to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-03 to support staff's recommendation to deny this appeal. AYES - 6; NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0 Ms. McNamara wished to bring staff's attention to the changes made in Ms. Cortez's comments for the minutes of the November 8, 2004, meeting in which this item was heard. She wanted to ensure that those changes were made; the excerpt of those minutes did not reflect that change. Ms. Cortez's original comments were reflected, not the amended comments. The correct wording should be: "She believed that families attempting to increase square footage to accommodate a growing family should not be lumped in with houses with many illegal residences." Ms. Altschuler noted that the changes had been made, and that the draft minutes had been included in the packet. She noted that the correct comments by Ms. Cortez would be reflected in the packet. Ms. Kohlstrand left the meeting following this item. Planning Board Minutes Page 17 January 10, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,18 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 18 | Page 18 January 10, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,19 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 19 | Ms. Altschuler noted that she and Mr. Cormack would be retiring within the next three and six months, depending upon a variety of factors. The City is currently recruiting for a Supervising Planner to replace her position, and there was a position open for a Planner III. She added that City Manager Jim Flint has left, and that Bill Norton was acting as interim City Manager. He had previously been a City Manager in Alameda. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Ms. Altschuler replied that Melodie Bounds had taken a position in West Hollywood. Currently, the Planning and Building Department planner staff consisted of Dennis Brighton, Allen Tai, and David Valeska (part-time). Mr. Lynch believed that the hiring of any planners and the City Manager would best be accomplished following the hiring of Mr. Fuz's replacement. He noted that contract planners were useful, but that their training often took time away from already overworked staff planners. Ms. Altschuler noted that waiting to hire planners may cause stress on existing planners and other staff members. Mr. Cormack noted that the Board members' comments were well-taken and was confident that the positions would be filled in a reasonable amount of time. Ms. Altschuler noted that she was most concerned about the public information counter, and that the planners' efforts were split between working at the counter and writing staff reports. She noted that the contract planners could work with use permits and variances, and the staff planners could work the counter. She noted that she recently spent a day at the counter. President Cunningham noted that a problem with contract staff was the consistency of information given to the public. Mr. Lynch supported enhancing the staffing levels. Ms. Harryman suggested that the Board agendize this subject for a future meeting. Ms. McNamara noted that the photos in the Webster Street Design Guidelines were all black. Ms. Altschuler noted that staff would review the document and provide more legible copies for the Pl… | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf,20 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 20 | Respectfully submitted, Jefry Cormack, Interim Secretary City Planning Department These minutes were approved at the January 24, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 20 January 10, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-24 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Monday, January 24, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CONVENE: 7:06 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Vice President Cook 3. ROLL CALL: President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch and Piziali. Board members Mariani and McNamara were absent. Also present were Development Review Manager Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner II Allen Tai, Barbara Hawkins, Public Works. 4. MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of January 10, 2005. Ms. Kolhstrand advised that she left after Item 9, not Item 11, as indicated on page 18. Vice President Cook advised that page 9, paragraph 5, should be changed to read, "Vice President Cook noted in San Francisco, the existing piers were left intact and new so that new structures were proposed to could be built independent of the existing piers-it. She noted that the cost of removing the old buildings were structures was high." Vice President Cook advised that page 10, paragraph 11, should be changed to read, "Vice President Cook would like a better understanding of the height of the proposed project in relation to the Extended Stay America building to the west and the office building to the east, as well as to the buildings located across the Estuary." M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of January 10, 2005, as amended. AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION: Mr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that because of family time issues, he may not be able to speak about Item 8-b and may submit a written comment. He noted that he was a strong proponent of work/live. He believed that the current ordinance may be improved, but noted that the risk of a ballot initiative was having no ordinance at all. Planning Board Minutes Page 1 January 24, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-24 | 2 | 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. TM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests approval of Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels in to nine parcels. The parcels are located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD. Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development District. (Applicant is requesting a continuance to the February 14, 2005 meeting.) M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board of February 14, 2005. AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 2 January 24, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-24 | 3 | 7-B. DR04-0111/V04-0020, 836 Oak Street, Applicant: Richard Vaterlaus for Michael Rich (AT). The proposal is a request for Major Design Review to legalize the unauthorized raising of a single-family residence one foot to create habitable space in the basement. The building height was increased from approximately 23'-0" to 24'-0", where 35'-0" is the maximum permitted height. The construction also requires a variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(e) to allow a rear staircase to extend 7'-6" into the required rear yard, where the maximum encroachment permitted is 6'-0". The project site is located within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential District. M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-05-04 to approve a request for Major Design Review to legalize the unauthorized raising of a single-family residence one foot to create habitable space in the basement. The building height was increased from approximately 23'-0" to 24'-0", where 35'-0" is the maximum permitted height. The construction also requires a variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(e) to allow a rear staircase to extend 7'-6" into the required rear yard, where the maximum encroachment permitted is 6'-0". AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 January 24, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-24 | 4 | 7-C. UP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park, 740 Central Avenue (DV). Renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design Review for 90 foot tall painted metal monopole communications tower in place of an existing 47 foot tall light pole along the upper baseball diamond left field fence at Washington Park. Associated ground equipment would be placed in a building of up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground equipment. A Use Permit is required by AMC Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure and above ground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. (Applicant is requesting a continuance to the February 14, 2005 meeting.) M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board of February 14, 2005. AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 4 January 24, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-24 | 5 | 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-A. PD04-0004/DR04-0113, 433 Buena Vista Avenue, Applicant: Alameda Multifamily Ventures, LLC (AT). The applicant requests a second Study Session before the Planning Board to review a proposal for the construction of a two-story 6,000 square foot community building, four 16-car garages, façade changes to existing apartment buildings, and other improvements at the Harbor Island Apartments site. The site is located at 433 Buena Vista Avenue, within an R-4 PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development District. Mr. Tai summarized the staff report. Mr. Chris Auxier, project manager, Alameda Multifamily Ventures, distributed additional information that was not included in the first set of drawings. He noted that they had tried to be responsive to the feedback received by the Board and the public. Mr. Shaun Alexander, Axis Architecture, project architect, displayed a PowerPoint presentation that detailed the project overview, improvement of the property's physical appearance, the pedestrian experience, residential amenities, public safeties, on-site parking, and transparency with the community. He noted that the existing site limitations were considerable, and that while was not much room to expand the parking facilities, they could create a more pleasant environment around the buildings for the residents. He noted that the interior common hallways, bathrooms and kitchens would be redone, and that the landscaping would be upgraded and transformed. The carports would be eliminated except for certain sections along the East of the property, and the parking would be restriped to meet current standards. A new clubhouse, and four garage buildings would be constructed; trash enclosures would be upgraded. Mr. Alexander noted that new lower fences would be installed around the ground floor patios to provide greater transparency. Because of the proximity to the adjacent street, some units would feature a more solid fence look. Additional landscaping would buffer all the buildings, and a substantial … | PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-24 | 6 | spine of activity. The resident activities would take place on the lower floor of the clubhouse for the tenants' convenience. The plans were changed to eliminate the office area, and to include a coffee area. The 2nd level patio of the community center was expanded after one set of stairs was eliminated and a new terrace is proposed as a transition spaces between the community center and swimming pool. He noted that the goal of the landscape plan was to create a greener environment on the site, to beautify the property with increased foliage, and to reduce concrete paving between the buildings. Mr. Alexander noted that the carports would be removed, as well as some of the perimeter fencing to open up the property. He noted that the fence along Appezzato Parkway would be made more pleasant, with increased connections to the neighborhood. Additional parking spaces, trees and security lighting would be placed in the parking lots. He noted that they worked with Carol Beaver and Michael Smiley to better understand the West Alameda Neighborhood Improvement Plan; they proposed to include two gates along the Appezzato Parkway fence to allow access to the future greenbelt and other parts of the community. He described the new location for the trash enclosure, which would not block other activities on the site and would entail minimal disturbance to the residents. He noted that approximately half of the carports on the east side would be eliminated. The vaulted roofs on the remaining carports would be removed, which would be replaced by a trellis element for a softer look and a smaller visual impact on the adjacent neighborhood. He noted that the main feature of Quadrant 3 was the connection to the adjacent neighborhood; the neighborhood plan called for a connection to Woodstock Park. For that to occur, the City would need to gain control of 25 feet of the existing Chipman Middle School property. Mr. Alexander noted that the applicant was concerned about the impact of the Poggi Street/Buena Vista Ave. curb bulb out propose… | PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-24 | 7 | President Cunningham believed that was a counterintuitive practice in a community where pedestrian access was encouraged. Planning Board Minutes Page 7 January 24, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-24 | 8 | In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding an alternative to this practice, Mr. Alexander replied that trash enclosures throughout the property would be the alternative. Mr. Lynch believed that conformity with City Code should be the overriding factor, followed by design. In response to Vice President Cook's question regarding parking, Mr. Tai confirmed that the site was underparked according to Code. Current parking standards require two parking spaces per dwelling unit, and this property would need 1230 spaces, where approximately 670 currently exist. The applicants proposed to increase the number of parking spaces to approximately 699 spaces by restriping the lots and by using compact spaces. Ms. Barbara Hawkins, Public Works Department, distributed a photo of a trash compactor and the access route. She noted that the new NEPDS requirements called for a roof on the trash compactor to accommodate the truck, which would be two stories. The compactor must be operated with a key, which would be a safety issue. The third issue with the compactor is that it did not comply with the City recycling standards. City staff met with ACI to determine the best solution to the trash issue. ACI had performed a study, finding that people usually took their trash out when they went to their cars, and that placing trash containers near the parking areas was the best practice. In addition, the trash enclosures must be high enough to keep children from playing on them. With respect to circulation, Ms. Kohlstrand believed that the constraints of the existing site must be recognized, and that the applicant was going in the right direction by removing the concrete. She was encouraged to see the connections to Appezzato Parkway. In response to her question regarding the nature of the breaks in the wall, Chris Auxier replied that they would be primarily used by the residents. A discussion of the physical attributes of the fence and the gates ensued. In response to Ms. Kohlstrand's question regarding pedestrian access at Fifth Stre… | PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-24 | 9 | Mr. Alexander noted that they could reduce the scale of the entry somewhat, and would be concerned about making it too short, when juxtaposed against the taller buildings. Community Center Comments In response to Mr. Piziali's question regarding the rest rooms, Mr. Alexander replied that there were two bathrooms to serve the pool, another two on the ground floor, and another two on the second floor. President Cunningham noted that a speaker slip was received, and requested a vote to reopen the public hearing. M/S Lynch/Piziali to reopen the public hearing. Planning Board Minutes Page 9 January 24, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-24 | 10 | AYES - 5 (McNamara, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Mr. Reginald James noted that he was a former resident of Harbor Island, and noted that the location for the trash enclosure at Fifth and Appezzato Parkway would have to be moved to accommodate the pathway through Fifth. He believed the northeast corner would be a good place for the trash enclosure. He did not know whether the concept of valet trash pickup would be workable. He believed that a recycling location would be a positive feature on the site. He supported a reduced amount of fencing. He did not support a high sound wall on Appezzato Parkway, and was not sure how a low wall would work. He expressed concern about the proposed private walkway. He suggested placing a walkway between Building 11 (rental office) and Building 12, which already had a visual connection from Woodstock on Brush. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Mr. Alexander confirmed that the ground floor restrooms would be available to residents. He added that the Code required outdoor showers for by pool users, and they intended to provide that kind of shower. Site Amenities President Cunningham complimented the addition of amenities as requested by the Board at the last meeting. Mr. Alexander noted that the inclusion of amenities in each quadrant was at the suggestion of Reggie James, which he supported. In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Mr. Tai confirmed that as part of the conditions of approval, a landscape maintenance agreement would be required. The agreement would specifically require the applicants to maintain the landscaping; any neglect would enable the City to improve the landscaping at the applicants' cost. Mr. Piziali would like to see a condition that all the construction trucks would stay off Buena Vista and Fifth Street (because of Longfellow School). Mr. Tai noted that if the applicants needed a construction trailer, its approval would be subject to a use permit. The operation and func… | PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-24 | 11 | negotiate contracts for them, and he added that their current contract was particular difficult. Miscellaneous Comments Mr. Lynch complimented Axis Architecture on its design work, and inquired whether they would have more design flexibility if they started from a clean site. Mr. Auxier confirmed that would be the case, but that it was prohibited by Measure A. Vice President Cook noted that this site was an important part in creating a community. for the 21st century, and hoped that dialogue about sensible planning can continue in a constructive way. Mr. Auxier introduced Michael Lee, the on-site construction and project manager, and noted that he would be based locally. Mr. Lee noted that the Board's comments about density were well-taken, and noted that recent projects he worked on have incorporated the higher density into the designs. He noted that they have used four-story parking garages surrounded by four-story residential buildings, as well as three-story buildings surrounding a courtyard. He noted that it was possible to keep the parking garages out of sight, and that there was no need for off-street parking. In addition, retail and commercial space could be incorporated as well. Mr. Lynch believed the remodel should be just as beautiful as the new residences across the street, and that high-quality design elements were very important in getting the project right the first time. Mr. Lee noted that because the foundations and frames were already in place, this project would be a relatively simple one to manage. The Board comments were noted. No action was taken. A public hearing will be scheduled for a future agenda. President Cunningham called for a ten-minute recess. Planning Board Minutes Page 11 January 24, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-24 | 12 | 8-B. Work/Live Regulations (JA). Review and consider possible modifications of Section 30-15 of the Alameda Municipal Code regulating Work Live Studios. (Continued from the meeting of January 10, 2005.) Ms. Altschuler summarized the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that he lived in a work/live space in Oakland for 10 years, which he enjoyed very much. He expressed concern about placing this complex issue on the ballot because of possible misunderstanding of the deeper issues. He noted that any legal issues may delay or indefinitely postpone any work/live spaces. He believed the current ordinance fell short of its potential, and would like to see it upgraded to be more accommodating. He hoped the Board would be slow and methodical in considering the work/live uses. Mr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, spoke in support of work/live uses with qualifications, and noted that he had been an architect for over 25 years. He noted that artists and architects were usually the first occupants of a redeveloped neighborhood, which eventually became upgraded for the use of other white-collar professionals. He believed that flexibility in planning the larger spaces along the Northern Waterfront and Alameda Point was appropriate for the community in the long run. He suggested that Measure A be modified to accommodate a work/live situation within appropriate zones. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Mr. Lynch noted that he supported Measure A, and inquired how Measure A and work/live lofts were in conflict. Ms. Altschuler replied that the conflict did not arise so much from the legal standing, because work/live studios were defined by both the State and local ordinances as industrial uses, as opposed to residential uses. She did not believe there was a conflict from a legal standpoint, although she believed the conflict would arise from the perception that people still live in those spaces. She added that was the basis for the argument against the uses as a Measure A… | PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf,13 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-24 | 13 | Ms. Harryman noted that the current lawsuit was not the first time the City had been sued on work/live and how it applied to Measure A. She could not communicate the exact status of the litigation, and noted that it would probably not be the last lawsuit. She believed that the existence of the two lawsuits (Edward Murphy and Ms. [Kowicki]) would probably bring the issue before a judge. She believed that Ms. [Kowicki] could build, because she had the approval of the City, but because there was pending litigation, it would be at her own risk. She did not believe Mr. Murphy had requested a retraining order, and believed the judge may be able to overturn the City's approval. She noted that Mr. Murphy had sued the City on this issue before, and did was not sure whether there had been a clear ruling one way or the other. She noted that previous cases had either been dismissed, or the parties had come to an agreement. President Cunningham inquired what the benefit would be of bringing the work/live issue to the voters if there was existing case law that would prove the two ordinances were working against each other. Ms. Harryman noted that there were pros and cons to bringing an issue to the people versus before a judge. Mr. Lynch believed that if a judge invalidated an ordinance, they would provide some instruction regarding the conflicts contained in the ordinance so that it may be rewritten. Ms. Harryman noted that judges often rule on other grounds, such as procedural grounds or standing. Mr. Piziali believed the ordinance should be left as is, and it may be brought up on a ballot initiative. He was not interested in changing it at this time. Ms. Kohlstrand believed the Board was being asked to debate the validity of the work/live ordinance, when the larger question was Measure A. She was unsure whether people were ready to engage in debate on Measure A yet. Ms. Altschuler noted that the ordinance limits a geographic area, addresses zoning within that area, and then is limited to existing buildings, particularly his… | PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-24 | 14 | President Cunningham noted that he would like to see work/live branch out to Alameda Point and Park Street. However, he did not want such a step to jeopardize the existence of the ordinance. Mr. Piziali believed the residents of Alameda would be able to see that work/live uses were controlled, attractive and appropriate. Vice President Cook believed this ordinance was a baby step toward a discussion of the broader implications of Measure A. She believed this ordinance brought up very important issues for historic preservation and adaptive reuse at the Base. She did not want to see the work/live ordinance put at risk by addressing more complex and overarching issues too soon. Vice President Cook noted that Alameda's citizens had stopped public processes before when it became apparent that it would be not be beneficial. She believed that Alamedans would exercise the same common sense in this case. President Cunningham noted that an additional speaker slip had been received. M/S Lynch/Cook to reopen the public hearing. AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 The public hearing was reopened. Mr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that he was pleased by the Board's discussion, although he did not disagree that work/live could be successfully extended throughout Alameda Point. He understood the delicacy of this issue. The public hearing was closed. No action was taken. Planning Board Minutes Page 14 January 24, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf,15 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-24 | 15 | 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that the next meeting would be hosted by the Planning Board in Council Chambers, so that the Board may be brought up to speed and to televise the meeting. The City Council has voted to disband the APAC at the end of the community meeting, and had asked the APAC to pass on the information gathered over its lifetime to the appropriate boards. She suggested that a series of meetings be held to pass that information on, on a topic-by-topic basis. She suggested that the first meeting be held before the first community hearing to discuss regulatory issues, in order to bring the Board up to speed on that information. Vice President Cook noted that there had been considerable discussion at the first community meeting about re-examining Measure A as it relates to Alameda Point. She noted that there was some communication at the second meeting, suggesting that the staff should not consider a non-Measure A alternative. She noted that a possible scenario at the Base was being considered that would include some discussion or possible changes to Measure A for the Base. She noted that was a very controversial issue. Mr. Cormack advised that Andrew Thomas would make that presentation to the Board, either on February 14th or 28th, 2005; the 14th was preferable. b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings since her last report. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Board Member Piziali advised that he had confirmed the continuing existence of the Committee, although the meetings were on hold at this time, possibly due to a funding issue. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. Ms. Kohlstra… | PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2005-01-24 | 16 | President Cunningham recalled that there had been a move to post the packet on the website. Mr. Lynch noted that staff transition had been discussed during the previous meeting, and requested that it be agendized for a future meeting, so that the City Manager be able to take part in the discussion. He believed that a discussion within the next month would be most beneficial. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Ms. Altschuler noted that the continued staffing levels affected the ability to distribute an email packet, and that they were attempting to maintain the same work product with a smaller staff. She noted that statutory requirements such as noticing were the first priority of the staff. Ms. Altschuler advised that the support staff requested that she discuss the issue of Roberts Rules of Order as they related to meeting minutes. She noted that the Planning Board minutes were considerably more detailed than what is required, and added that the Council minutes were shorter and did not provide as much information. In order to provide additional time for support staff to perform other duties, she requested the Board's input regarding more limited meeting minutes. She noted that the meeting was recorded on audio and videotape, and added that lengthy minutes must be reviewed and amended by staff. In addition, there was a tremendous amount of paper used in the distribution of the minutes. President Cunningham believed that for study sessions, that a list of bullet points would be sufficient. Routine items would still be well-served by briefer minutes. Ms. Altschuler noted that more important or controversial items would still need detail appropriate to their complexity. Ms. Kohlstrand supported that suggestion. Ms. Altschuler noted that if the condensed minutes were not useful, the extended minutes could be reinstated. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Altschuler confirmed that Building Inspectors generally dropped the packets off while on their rounds in the field. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:27 p.m. Respectfully submitte… | PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Monday, February 14, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CONVENE: 7:03 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Ms. Mariani 3. ROLL CALL: President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, McNamara and Piziali. Also present were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas, Planner III David Valeska, Bruce Knopf, Development Services, Leslie Little, Development Services, Eric Fonstein, Development Services. 4. MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of January 24, 2005. M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of January 24, 2005, as presented. AYES - 5; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Mariani, McNamara) 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: President Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 7-B. M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-B from the Consent Calendar and to place it on the Regular Agenda. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION: Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that the AAPS submitted written comments for the Alameda Theater proposal. He apologized for the lengthy comments presented so close to the meeting, and requested email addresses for the Board members to provide written comments sooner. Mr. Lynch noted that Mr. Buckley's comments raised the larger question of adhering to the noticing requirements and the challenges presented by overworked and understaffed Planning Departments. He noted that some Planning Departments publish their meeting notices two meetings out in order to Planning Board Minutes Page 1 February 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 2 | invite communication and participation from the public. Vice President Cook noted that it was important for members of the public to have access to meeting materials, especially prior to high-interest items such as the Alameda Theatre. Planning Board Minutes Page 2 February 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 3 | 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. TM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests approval of Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into nine parcels. The parcels are located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD: Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of January 24, 2005.) Ms. Kohlstrand noted that the number of parcels in the subdivision was listed differently in the resolution and on the agenda. Ms. Harryman advised that this item would be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar and renoticed due to the discrepancy. M/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item so that it may be renoticed. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 February 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 4 | 7-B. UP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park, 740 Central Avenue (DV). Renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design Review for 90 foot tall painted metal monopole communications tower in place of an existing 47 foot tall light pole along the upper baseball diamond left field fence at Washington Park. Associated ground equipment would be placed in a building of up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground equipment. A Use Permit is required by AMC Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure and above ground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of January 24, 2005.) M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-B from the Consent Calendar and to place it on the Regular Agenda. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Mr. Bruce Knopf, Development Services Department, requested that this item be continued to the March 28, 2005, meeting to give staff additional time to address comments made recently. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Lil Arnerich, 3275 Encinal, noted that the proposed building was very large, and would encroach on the park's recreational activities. He noted that the current Board contained five members who did not approve the original application in 2001; he believed the item should have been discussed publicly. Mr. Jay Ingram, noted that while he was the Chair of the Recreation & Parks Commission, he was speaking as an individual. He distributed packets containing information about the towers. He noted that since the original agreement was created, several cellphone companies had merged. He inquired whether a monopole capable of accommodating six cellphone providers was still needed. He hoped that American Tower would be willing to move the fence and move the container away from the softball field; the applicant stated that the hum from the container would be muffled. A member of the public had suggested that the 10-foot container be sunk five feet in order to minimize the visual impact. Mr. Jason Peary, project manager, Am… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 5 | Mr. Lynch would like to see the applicant's business model, including the wave repeater, various technologies, and the FCC requirements as they relate to the Planning Board. He would also like to know why this site is critical to the applicant's operation. Ms. Kohlstrand requested that the applicant respond to the height issues raised by Mr. Ingram at the next hearing. M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board of March 28, 2005. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 5 February 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 6 | 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-A. Study Session Theater (DSD/JA). Study Session for a proposal to rehabilitate the Alameda Theatre and construct a new 7 screen Cineplex and 350 space parking structure on the Video Maniac site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC-CCPD, Community Commercial and Special Planned Development Districts. Ms. Kohlstrand advised that she would recuse herself from this item because she was a principal with the firm of EnviroTrans Solutions, which performed the traffic analysis for the combined parking garage/theater analysis. Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, summarized the history of this project and noted that the environmental review for this project had been completed. She noted that this project had three components: 1) the restoration of the historic Alameda Theater; 2) the construction of a new seven-screen cineplex that would be integral to the historic theater; and 3) the construction of a 352- space parking garage along Oak Street. The comments of the Board regarding significant design elements were sought in this study session; a three-dimensional model of the theater was presented to show the massing elements of the building. She emphasized the importance of the components working in an integral manner, rather than independently of one another. She introduced the members of the development team. Mr. Michael Stanton, project developer, presented a detailed PowerPoint presentation on the proposed Alameda Theater renovation construction and project site. The presentation included a variety of buildings in the historic commercial district of varying architectural styles. Ms. Naomi [Morolio], Architectural Resources Group, gave a presentation detailing the history, approach and proposed renovation of the Alameda Theater. She described the interior design and layout features of the theater, and noted that full ADA access would be provided throughout the theater, as well as structural and mechanical upgrades. Mr. Stanton noted that this would be one o… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 7 | retail, the auditoriums, the second-level lobby, and multilevel connection to the historic theater should be expressed as individual elements, the team believed the Cineplex should be designed to read as a single structure. The building also should acknowledge the garage presence at Oak Street. The design team had six recommendations for the Board to consider under Architectural Form and Articulation: 1. The second-level lobby will project three feet beyond the property line at Central to bring the activity of the lobby into the public domain, and to animate the street. 2. The strong horizontal line created by the existing marquees will be acknowledged in the new design; 3. The design should have continuous fixed glass, metal or concrete canopies to shelter the pedestrians in the street; 4. The frontage should have consistent transparent retail (80% of the retail space should be left open), and the activity of the shops should spill onto the street; 5. All mechanical equipment should be fully screened from view; and 6. The individual cinema at Oak and Central should project two feet beyond the property line to improve the general massing of the theater. The lighting recommendations were: 1. The overall lighting should be subdued and indirect; 2. The canopies over the retail spaces should have continuous downlights onto the public sidewalk; 3. Concealed lighting will be employed to illuminate the rosette and the curved section; 4. Exterior lighting will be controlled on a photocell or a timer; and 5. Lighting will be available in a vacant retail space. The signage should be subdued. Materials and colors will use a broad palette that will be consistent with the range found in the downtown district, and will be of high quality. Metal panels, glass panels, glass block, architecturally treated and painted concrete, ornamental stone, and masonry units will be available to the developers. Mr. Stanton described the parking garage, which will be brought before the Board in more detail at the next meeting. He noted that ga… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 8 | Page 8 February 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 9 | speak. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Ms. McNamara inquired how many seats the theater would have; Ms. Little replied that the main auditorium would seat 450 people, and that it would not always be filled; it would be able to accommodate blockbuster films if needed. She believed that the historic feel of the theater would be evoked through the new design. She described the refinishing and stabilizing processes planned for the renovation; the estimated cost for the renovation of the historic theater was $5.1-5.2 million for construction, plus associated soft costs of up to $2 million; these figures do not include the cost of acquisition; the new construction costs were not included in this estimate. President Cunningham inquired about the seismic upgrades; Ms. Little replied that ARG had integrated the upgrades in such a way that it would not detract from the design. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Ms. Little replied that there was considerable original fabric inside the theater; she described the original finishes and previous renovations. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani, Ms. Little confirmed that the study session was to focus on the exterior of the building. Ms. Mariani supported Mr. Buckley's input, particularly the removal of the big box and emphasizing the vertical elements. Vice President Cook wished to ensure that there was easy pedestrian access from the garage towards the library. Mr. Stanton stated that the garage was planned to be expandable should Long's become available to the City; the parking would then be available in the center of the block; a second lobby with a separate elevator and staircase would enable people to exit at the center of the block. Ms. McNamara expressed concern about traffic impacts on the narrow street and the parking garage exits; Ms. Little noted that their environmental impact studies would address those concerns. Vice President Cook expressed concern about the blank exterior walls. Regarding public art, Ms. Little noted that … | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 10 | to present a handsome articulation of the wall so it is not an urban eyesore. President Cunningham suggested that some articulation be written into the design guidelines to craft protection of the visibility of the marquee; he did not want to block of the view of the Twin Towers Church, and believed that scale of the intersection should be respected; he believed this was a golden opportunity to create an attractive and understated contemporary building that would blend into the existing community; the lighting plan of the project would be very important. Mr. Stanton advised that the historic theater can function by itself; however, the Cineplex cannot function without the historic theater. Vice President Cook would like the architecture team and the developer to address the corner; she suggested striking the language in 6-c that stated it "shall project two feet over the sidewalk"; Mr. Stanton replied that #6 could be stricken completely, or the wording could be strengthened so that the false brick materials could only be used after a public hearing before the Planning Board. Vice President Cook would like more specific language in the materials list; Mr. Stanton detailed some of the exterior materials. President Cunningham requested that the applicants speak to City staff to provide specific definitions as they pertain to the project. Ms. Altschuler noted that the size of the Cineplex sign was not yet clear; the developers were aware of the signage requirements in Alameda. Mr. Stanton described the ticket windows, and noted that purchasing tickets online would be used more often in the future; Ms. Little noted that they would endeavor to reduce the impact of ticket queuing as much as possible; bicycle parking would be in the garage. Mr. Stanton noted that they would incorporate comments from the public and the Board, and return for another hearing; the garage design would be considered in a separate study session in more detail; No action was taken. President Cunningham called for a five-minute recess. Board mem… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 11 | 8-B. Theater Overlay District Designation (CE). Recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance establishing a Theater Overlay District and rezoning certain properties in the Theater Overlay District designation. Mr. Eric Fonstein, management analyst, Development Services Department, summarized the staff report. Staff recommended that the Planning Board recommend that the City Council approve the zoning text amendment and the reclassification based on the findings contained in the Draft Resolution. The public hearing was opened. There were no speakers. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Vice President Cook advised that some text of the amendment was not included in her packet. Ms. Harryman advised that the attached ordinance was included when she saw it the previous week. M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of February 28, 2005 to allow staff to re-circulate the report with all attachments. AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 11 February 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 12 | 8-C. Design Review DR04-0082; Variance V04-0014; Peter Braun for Michele and Frank Mulligan; 1608 Santa Clara Avenue (AT/MG). The project involves Code Enforcement action on an unauthorized conversion of a two car garage in the rear yard into a dwelling unit. The applicants are requesting approval of a Major Design Review and seven variances to legalize the conversion. The variances required to legalize the dwelling unit include: a. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(6), for the eight-inch side yard, where five feet is required for the first story and seven feet is required for the second story. b. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(7), for the eight-inch rear yard, where twenty feet is required. c. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(8), for the approximate 15' separation between the main building and the proposed cottage, where a twenty foot separation is required. d. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.10(a)(2), for not having a landscaped separation between the proposed parking spaces and buildings/property lines, where a three foot landscaped separation is required. e. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.9(f)(1), for the proposed driveway, which is approximately twenty feet wide, where residential driveways are limited to a maximum of ten feet. f. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.10(a)(3), for not having a landscaped separation between the proposed driveway and the property line, where a one foot landscaped separation is required. g. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.6(a)(1), for the proposed three parking spaces, where a minimum of four off-street parking spaces is required for two dwelling units. Mr. Valeska summarized the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the Variances and Major Design Review, and recommended that the applicant explore other solutions as part of the Code Enforcement. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Mulligan, applicant, detailed the history of this application and stated that he was surprised to find that the cottage was permitted for a garage. He emphasized that the structure w… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,13 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 13 | President Cunningham advised that the Board must act on the Variances and the findings as they conform to the Alameda Municipal Code. Ms. Kohlstrand expressed concern about the residential structure not meeting the building code; Mr. Piziali noted that even in 1984, a house could not be built on a zero property line. He emphasized that the Board was severely limited in their ability to help the applicant without making the required findings. M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to uphold staff's recommendation to deny the Variance and Major Design Review. AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 13 February 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 14 | 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that they continued to meet monthly, and were preparing for the workshop on March 3, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in Chambers; community participation was strongly encouraged. b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since her last report. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since his last report. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: a. Presentation in preparation for March 3 Alameda Point Community Workshop. Mr. Thomas displayed a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Planning Board with a preview of the issues associated with development of Alameda Point, which will be discussed at the workshop to be held March 3, 2005. He distributed a hard copy of the PowerPoint presentation and advised that the presentation and other materials can be found on www.alamedapoint.com. He anticipated having a preliminary land use concept and a conveyance strategy accomplished with the Navy by summer. He noted that the four key issues to be addressed at the March 3 workshop were: financial feasibility, historic preservation, Measure A and transportation. The following workshop at the end of March will be co-hosted by the Transportation Commission and the APAC, and will focus on the Estuary crossing issues. He emphasized that the project must pay for itself, and not rely on the City's General Fund; it must also be fiscally neutral in the long run. Mr. Thomas detailed the policy background, environmental constraints, land use constraints, challenges and opportunities of the site. He summarized the issues … | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,15 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 15 | M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m. AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Ms. Kohlstrand believed the issue of transportation constraints should be linked to the land use discussion. Mr. Thomas noted that no decisions would be made at the end of the workshop. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary City Planning Department These minutes were approved at the February 28, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 15 February 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CONVENE: 7:08 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Ms. McNamara 3. ROLL CALL: President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, and McNamara. Board member Piziali was absent. Also present were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Assistant City Attorney David Brandt, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner III Allen Tai, Leslie Little, Development Services, Eric Fonstein, Development Services. 4. MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of February 14, 2005. M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 14, 2005, as presented. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: President Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 7-C. Mr. Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Avenue, stated that he was in favor of Item 7-C., and did not wish to speak. President Cunningham stated that because of the length of the agenda, and the fact that the March 14, 2005, agenda did not have any items, there was a general consensus to continue Item 8-D to the March 14, 2005, meeting. M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue Item 8-D to the Planning Board meeting of March 14, 2005. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None. Planning Board Minutes Page 1 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 2 | 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. TM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests approval of Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into sixteen parcels. The parcels are located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of January 24, 2005.) M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-06 to approve Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into sixteen parcels. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 2 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 3 | 7-B. Theater Overlay District Designation (CE). Recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance establishing a Theater Overlay District and rezoning certain properties in the Theater Overlay District designation. (Continued from the meeting of February 14, 2005.) M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-07 to approve a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance establishing a Theater Overlay District and rezoning certain properties in the Theater Overlay District designation. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 4 | 7-C. ZA05-0002, 842 Central Avenue, Central Cinema, Applicant: Mark Haskett (DV). The Applicant seeks approval to continue to operate a movie theater with up to 49 seats in the C- 1, Neighborhood Business District where a movie theater use is not currently allowed as a permitted use or as a use regulated by Use Permit. The Planning Board will review and take action on the following options associated with continued use of this movie theater: 1) Consideration of a Zoning Use Determination that a "Boutique Theater" defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater" is sufficiently similar to what is allowed pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code section 30-4.8(c)(7) which allows by Use Permit "Theaters with live performances that are in combination with other permitted uses." If the Planning Board determines that a "Boutique Theater" is consistent with what is allowed by A.M.C. section 30-4.8(c)(7), then the applicant will apply for a Use Permit at a future meeting; or 2) Consideration of an Amendment to Section 30-4.8 (c) to add "Boutique Theater" as a use regulated by Use Permit in the C-1 zoning district. "Boutique Theater would be defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater." If the Planning Board determines that a "Boutique Theater" could be an appropriate use in the C-1 zoning district, the zoning amendment will be forwarded to Council for adoption and the applicant would need to return to the Planning Board for a Use Permit following adoption of the amendment by Council. {Staff requests a continuance to the meeting of April 11, 2005 pending an Initial Study as required by the California Environmental Quality act (CEQA)} M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of April 11, 2005. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Plannin… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 5 | 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-A. Study Session Theater (DSD/JA). Study Session to review revisions for Design Guidelines to construct a new 7-screen Cineplex and 352-space parking structure on the Video Maniac site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC - CCPD, Community Commercial and Special Planned Development Districts. (Continued from the meeting of February 14, 2005.) Ms. Kohlstrand advised that she would recuse herself from this item because she was a principal with the firm of EnviroTrans Solutions, which performed the traffic analysis for the combined parking garage/theater analysis. Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services, advised that the theater's design would be addressed at this study session, and that they would present revised guidelines. She advised that Michael Stanton could not attend this session, and that Brian Lyles would speak on behalf of the project developer. President Cunningham advised that eight speaker slips had been received. M/S Mariani/McNamara to limit the speakers' time to three minutes. AYES - 3 (Piziali absent); NOES - 2 (Cunningham, Cook); ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand) The public hearing was opened. Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, requested to speak after the letter from AAPS had been distributed to the Board members. Mr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, advised that he had distributed a letter to the Board. He noted that there was considerable detail on the exterior, but that there was less information regarding the interior of the project. If it was a partial package, he believed it should be not as such; if not, he requested an explanation regarding the missing information. He believed the developer's architect should be given maximum design creativity within a set of design guidelines. Mr. Scott Brady, 1812 Encinal Avenue, former chairman of the Historic Advisory Board, noted that he was an architect. He believed the guidelines were unnecessarily restrictive, and that the wording in the draft gu… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 6 | Ms. Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio, believed that the corner where the theater is located is a major feature of Alameda; she expressed concern about excessive massing and blank walls with respect to the theater. She suggested that the large blank wall adjacent to Long's be covered with a mural duplicating the view of what would be lost. She would like to see the round corner included in the structure. She did not believe that three-minute speaking time was sufficient for speakers with detailed presentations. Mr. Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Avenue, believed the massing model made the building look as if it were bursting at the seams, and that it pushed out in all directions. He believed that community opinion was overwhelmingly against the "big box" look. He supported some reference to the old building in the new design, and did not see that in this design. Ms. Annie Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, spoke in opposition to this design, and did not believe it was beautiful enough for Alameda. She would prefer to see the design created by Timothy Flueger to be restored to its former glory. She believed the upstairs balcony should be restored, like the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland. She expressed concern about the amount of parking that would be needed, and did not believe the proposed parking garage would be sufficient. Ms. Elizabeth Krase, 2520 Chester Street, AAPS, generally supported this item. She expressed concern about the two-foot and three-foot projections of the second floor, particularly the projection at the lobby which she believed would seriously detract from the rounded corner. She did not support the idea of notching the building back so that people in the lobby could see the round perforated decorative screen. She did not like the use of metal can letters in the signage; she suggested that neon signage would be in keeping with the Deco design of the original building. Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, did not believe the design of the proposed theater was at all attractive, and believed that … | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 7 | from surrounding buildings. He believed that the guidelines meant a modernist building rather than contemporary. He suggested that the overly strong horizontal proportions be toned down for visual balance with respect to the surrounding buildings; the two-foot projection should be deleted. The three-foot project should be incorporated as an option to be considered by the architect. He did not believe the Oak Street side of the Cineplex should be notched to show the parking garage; it should be a continuous façade. He did not believe this project should have internally illuminated signs, box signs or individually canned letters; the sidewalk along Oak Street should be at least 12 feet wide to accommodate any large crowds. Mr. Arthur Lipow spoke in opposition to this item. He believed that the public funds could be put to better use than the theater and parking structure, given the current economy of the State and the City. He believed the East Bay already had too many movie screens, and did not believe it was an economically viable project. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Ms. Little noted that the vertical elements that would require ADA access were in the new building, not the historic building. In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the seating capacity, Ms. Little replied that approximately 1,100 seats would be installed. Vice President Cook believed that it was important to be aware of the flexibility of the development deal, and that the tradeoffs would be reflected in design accommodations in the new building. Ms. Little noted that the developer and the architect were anxious to proceed with the project, and added that the comments were very valuable. She noted that the design guidelines were not intended to become complicated, but were an attempt to get good qualitative comments in the beginning of the process. Mr. Lynch agreed with a number of items presented during the public hearing. He did not believe the allocation of public dollars was within his purview as a B… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 8 | Mr. Lynch believed that it was very important to discuss this project at the front end. President Cunningham believed that a great deal of valuable comments had been made, and that would be sufficient to start crafting a more developed design. He expressed concern about the corner, as well as the seam between the new cinema and the old theater. Vice President Cook expressed concern that the new design would interfere with the rounded nature of the old architecture evident on existing theater. Ms. McNamara agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and believed strongly that Mr. Buckley's ideas should be seriously considered. She believed the new architecture should reflect the surrounding architecture that appears in the neighborhood. Referring to Mr. Buckley's photos, Mr. Lynch liked the manner in which the massing was broken up, particularly with the parking garage within the City of Walnut Creek. Ms. Mariani agreed with the other Board members' comments, and cautioned against the building becoming a large, protruding box on the corner. She requested redlined versions of future documents so revisions could be easily noted. President Cunningham summarized the comments by the Board and the public: 1. A large monolithic box on the corner are not acceptable, whether or not the two-foot projection was included; 2. The rosette on the front corners of the existing theater is a very important element of the existing architecture; 3. Internally illuminated box signage or individual can letters should be avoided; 4. The design guidelines don't give clear direction as to how the signage would relate in the retail area; 5. Some language should be added regarding the parking garage and the big wall, to ensure the designer and contractor are aware of the community's aversion to a large blank wall; and 6. Provisions for a mural or some articulation of this blank wall should be included, as suggested by Ms. McNally. President Cunningham noted that Mr. Buckley's comments were very valuable, particularly with respect to elimina… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 9 | M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of March 14, 2005. AYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand) Planning Board Minutes Page 9 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 10 | 8-B. R04-0002, UP04-0013, V04-0018, DR04-0101: 1410 Everett-Mary Applegate (DV). Public hearing to reconsider a Design Review (DR04-0101) for the construction of a new 5,300 sq. ft. veterinary clinic on a lot currently developed with a vacant bank building which would be demolished located at 2501 Central Avenue. The existing veterinary clinic located at 1410 Everett Street would be demolished and developed as a parking lot. The proposed 23 space parking lot can be accessed from either Central Avenue or Everett Street. The project also requires the rezoning of an approximately 7,800 square foot lot currently developed as a parking lot located between the bank building and the adjacent condominium building. The lot would be rezoned from R-5, General Residential Zoning District, to C-C, Community Commercial Zoning District to establish consistency with the General Plan. The lots at 2501 Central Avenue and 1410 Everett Street are zoned C-C, Community Commercial Zoning District. Ms. Altschuler summarized the staff report. Four separate actions are sought by the Planning Board: 1. A recommendation on a conformance rezoning; 2. A decision on a Use Permit; 3. A decision on a Variance for a second driveway; and 4. A decision on a Design Review for the new building being proposed. Ms. Altschuler advised that this item had been appealed to the City Council, who returned the case to the Planning Board for second review in response to expressed concerns related to the wording of the public notice. She advised that the original notice was listed as 1410 Everett, the address for the original clinic. However, the expansion would occur on a site that is addressed off of Central Avenue. City Council directed staff to bring this item back before the Board as a de novo hearing, and all four items will be heard as if they were new items. She reviewed the items for the Board, and emphasized that the rezoning was intended to conform to the intent of the General Plan for that site. The conformance rezoning was separate from any expansi… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 11 | Mr. Steve Busse, operations manager for Park Center Animal Hospital, noted that Dr. Applegate is his wife. He summarized the history of this application, and displayed a presentation of the design on the overhead screen. He noted that he spoke with Tom Matthews, who lives across the street from the property; as a result of the discussion, he presented City Council with a modified signage plan that featured a backlit sign and a change in the elevation on Central Avenue. He also attempted to contact the individuals who spoke at the Council meeting to get their feedback, clarify any misunderstandings, and better understand their concerns. He noted that only one person (Joe Meylor) agreed to meet with him; his primary concern was with the noticing, and he was also concerned about the building's design. He believed that the neighborhood alert that had been distributed to the neighbors was a major reason why no one wished to meet with him, and added that it was inflammatory and inaccurate. He stated that the allegations of criminal activity in the neighborhood was completely without foundation. The clinic was not open 24/7, and the staff report clearly stated the hours of operation. Mr. Busse noted that the square footage of the building requires 22 parking spaces, and 23 spaces have been included. A large curb cut would be removed, which would replace 2 to 3 on-street parking spaces. He noted that most of the animals they treated would be in the hospital for a few hours, and they did not operate a boarding facility; customers would be able to allow their pets to stay at the facility only if they were existing veterinary customers, and usually because they had medical concerns about their pet. They will continue to observe their written dog-walking policy, which includes maintain dogs on-leash, walking only on public sidewalks, and maintaining the dog on public property. They will pick up their droppings, as well as other droppings that they see while walking; he noted that their efforts resulted in fewer droppings, no… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 12 | Mr. Jim Miller, 2508 Crist Street, noted that he was originally opposed to this project; after hearing the applicants' response to the neighborhood concerns, he is now in support of this project and rescinded his stated opposition to the project. Mr. George Borikas, 1500 Gibbons Drive, noted that he owned the four-unit apartment building displayed by the applicant. He inquired what his rights as a landlord would be if a tenant sued him for failing to provide "quiet enjoyment" because of any excessive noise from the clinic; he inquired whether the City would pay for his defense should he have a problem with a tenant. Mr. Erin Beales, 2452 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that he was the author of the neighborhood alert. He emphasized that he was not trying to close the clinic down, and read his written statement into the record: "I'm here to ask you to deny the Use Permit for this project. You sent out approximately 175 notices to the people in the neighborhood. These notices were to inform people that there is going to be a decision made by the Planning Board that can negatively affect their way of life. In essence, you're asking these people how they feel about this project, and that their opinions would drive the decision of the Planning Board. In two short weeks, my neighbors and Iknocked on a few doors and explained to the residents what was being proposed on the corner of Central and Everett. In the short time, we gathered a list of signatures, almost 50 people that are within the notification boundary. The other 10 on this list are on the close outskirts of this boundary. If we had more time, this list would be a lot bigger. This is almost 25% of the notification list that have spoken out with some concern about this project. The concerns range from obviously my concerns of the dogs being exercised in the neighborhood, the scale and size of the actual building that close to the residential neighborhood. And although there are 23 parking spaces, it is going to have an impact on the… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,13 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 13 | When there are 50 neighbors against an applicant, I would hope that you would see the light and deny this Use Permit. Let's remember the intended use of this actual plot is not approved in its zone. That is why they need a Conditional Use Permit; that's why they're here for that permit. We are here to discuss whether that would be okay, and clearly, I think it is not. Furthermore, if you decide to give them this Use Permit, at the very least, there should be a condition written into it that says they must conduct all business, specifically the dog walking, in a commercial zone, not in the residential zone next door. So, if they're going to be doing business in a commercial zone, all of their business should take place there. This new facility, although they say it does not exercise dogs in the neighborhood, on the layout of the actual facility that was given to you before, there are 21 kennels in this facility for dogs. Out of 21 dogs at full capacity, I think quite a few of these dogs are going to be exercised every day. IfI had my dog there, Iwould hope that it got out at least once a day. Currently, I view this all day long out my front window. They walk the dogs, right in front of my house and down Regent. And whether they say they do or do not, they do. They pick up after the dogs, but you cannot extract urine from my lawn. It is detrimental and a healthy hazard." Ms. Heather Beales, 2452 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. She was concerned that most of the supporters of this application did not live directly across the street from the site, as she did. She expressed concern that the activities and lighted sign of the hospital encroached on the quiet enjoyment of her home; she was also concerned about the potential noise of the exercise area, as well as the increased traffic on Central Avenue. She did not question the character of the applicants, but did not believe this was the appropriate location for this use. Mr. Gene Oh, Alameda Bicycle, 1522 Park Street, spoke in support of this applicat… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 14 | Ms. Shelley Dunn, 1322 Regent Street, noted that she was not opposed to the presence of the hospital, but was concerned about parking and dog urine on her lawn. She noted that the urine may not be the responsibility of the hospital staff. She inquired what would happen to the cars current renting space on that site. Ms. Kate Pryor, 2063 Eagle Avenue, spoke in support of this application. She noted that she was a business owner, and believed that the mixed use made the district more vibrant. Ms. Nancy Matthews, 2450 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and expressed concern about the impact of this use on the residences. She described the traffic flow in the neighborhood, and expressed concern about the potential increase in traffic. She did not believe that customers of the clinic should be able to urge approval of a project they did not have to live with. Mr. Tom Matthews, 2450 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that 50 local residents were also opposed to this application. He doubted that the merchants on Park Street would allow this use. He did not believe this building had any residential character, and that the expansion was too large for the area. He believed a condition should be added that would require pets to be walked in the commercial zones only, and that the use to limited to care of sick pets only, with no boarding. He believed the setback was inadequate, with a one-foot setback from Central Avenue; he believed the small setback made it incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood. He would like to see architectural changes that would be more compatible with the transitional residential part of the neighborhood. Mr. Joe Meylor, 1361 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to all facets of this project, including the use, the design and the Variance because the use fundamentally changed the business model of the business. He noted that a small business would become a larger, wider-ranging facility with many more uses. He noted that dogs urinated on his private prope… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,15 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 15 | was important for the health care of the animals. He noted that the business was located in a commercial area with surrounding homes. Dr. Genevieve Manchester-Johnson, DVM, Associate Veterinarian, Park Center Animal Hospital, 16863 Los Banos Street, San Leandro, wished to respond to the residents who believed the applicants would act in an irresponsible manner. She read the oath taken by all veterinarians: "Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, Isolemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health, the relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public health and the advancement of medical knowledge. I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity and in keeping with the principles of veterinary medical ethics. I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual improvement of my professional knowledge and competence." Dr. Manchester-Johnson stated that everyone at Park Center took their oath very seriously, and added that keeping the neighborhood clean was a very large part of that commitment. She stated they would never consider walking an animal that would pose a health risk to other animals or people; to suggest so would be utterly against their oath. Ms. Helen Mohr Thomas, 3011 Thompson Avenue, spoke in support of this project; she had taken her pets to the center for 10 years and received excellent care. She believed the business was an asset to Alameda. She believed the expansion would greatly improve the physical appearance at Everett and Central, especially the elimination of the long-abandoned minibank. She believed the expansion would also provide a valuable service to the community. Mr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, Park Street Business Association, spoke in support of this application, and was pleased that the project offered more parking than was required. He noted that the rezoning would bring the parcel into compliance with the General Plan, as well as its inte… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 16 | Mr. Busse stated that the business was a veterinary hospital, and that boarding was an ancillary use. Only medical clients were able to use the boarding services, such as for diabetic dogs that need medical oversight. Presently, they allow only two spots for boarding, and that boarding was not available for non-clients; the other four slots were reserved for hospitalized animals. He estimated that six to eight boarding spaces would be available at peak periods for their medical clients; their business was not a kennel. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the exercise area, Mr. Busse confirmed that it was not a dog run or play area, but an enclosed area where staff members will walk dogs on-leash one at a time. He emphasized that dogs would not be fenced in unattended in that area all day; it may take 10-15 minutes for staff to walk each dog. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding the setbacks, Mr. Busse stated that the building setback at the closest point would be one foot from the property line on Central Avenue. The property line is 4'2" from the existing sidewalk, allowing five feet of landscape space at the closest point; it would expand to a range of 7-14 feet in other areas. Vice President Cook stated that she had no concerns about the proposed rezoning or about the design. She expressed concern about the impact of the lighted sign on the residences, and added that the business hours were generally confined to daylight hours. She was not concerned about the driveway, but was concerned about the expansion of the use next to residential uses. She noted that the Use Permit ran with the land, not the business, and did not believe this was an appropriate use so close to a residential neighborhood. Mr. Lynch advised that he did not have any concerns with the business operations at this site, largely due to their business model. Ms. Mariani noted that this use should blend as much as possible into the neighborhood, and suggested that mature landscaping be a condition of appeal. Mr. … | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,17 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 17 | M/S Cook/Lynch and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to rezone the approximately 7,800 square foot lot currently developed as a parking lot located between the bank building and the adjacent condominium building property from R-5, General Residential Zoning District, to C-C, Community Commercial Zoning District to establish consistency with the General Plan. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- 0 President Cunningham stated that he believed this was a very good project, and supported it wholly. He understood the neighbors' concerns, and suggested that conditions be crafted to help mitigate the issues of dog exercise and waste in the neighborhood. He did not believe the veterinary hospital should be held accountable for other dog owners' actions in the neighborhood. Ms. Altschuler advised that she had spoken with the business owners regarding that issue, and suggested that the Board discuss that point with the applicants. She suggested that a compromise be reached on whether the dogs may be walked only in the commercial areas. She noted that it would be difficult to distinguish between an employment of the hospital and another person walking a dog unless some identifying garb were to be worn. Mr. Lynch noted that he was a strong proponent of the revitalization of Park Street, and acknowledged that many people walked their dogs in that area. He would not support a restriction requiring the dogs be walked only in a commercial district because of the number of dogs in the area; it would be an unenforceable restriction. He suggested that the pets being cared for wore a band that would identify them as patients of the facility. Ms. Kohlstrand noted that the other veterinary hospitals in Alameda were adjacent to residential uses, with the exception of the facility on Webster Street. She noted that this neighborhood must accommodate both residential and commercial uses, and that both uses need to co-exist; she did not believe the design should be a residential design. She would like respo… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,18 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 18 | a Variance to allow two driveways to provide ingress/egress to the proposed 23 space parking lot to serve the vet clinic use. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Dr. Applegate advised that they did not plan to have an internally illuminated sign, and added that it got dark before 5 p.m. in the winter. She would like to have a backlit sign on Everett Street so that the sign may be read, but that they did not want to have bright lights in the neighborhood. M/S Cook/Mariani to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to change Condition 10 to require that the sign along Central Avenue will not be illuminated; site illumination would be acceptable. AYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 1 (Kohlstrand); ABSTAIN - 0 M/S Lynch/Kohlstrand to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to approve the Design Review (DR04-0101) for the construction of a new 5,300 sq. ft. veterinary clinic on a lot currently developed with a vacant bank building which would be demolished located at 2501 Central Avenue. The existing veterinary clinic located at 1410 Everett Street would be demolished and developed as a parking lot. The proposed 23 space parking lot can be accessed from either Central Avenue or Everett Street. AYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0 President Cunningham called for a five-minute recess. Planning Board Minutes Page 18 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,19 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 19 | 8-C. PD04-0004/DR04-0113, 433 Buena Vista Avenue, Applicant: Alameda Multifamily Ventures, LLC (AT). The applicant seeks Design Review and Planned Development approval for the construction of a two-story 6,000 square foot community building, four 16- car garages, facade changes to existing apartment buildings, and other improvements at the Harbor Island Apartments site. The site is located at 433 Buena Vista Avenue, within an R-4 PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development District. Mr. Tai summarized the staff report, and described the modifications to the design and elevations. Since the packet had been sent to the Planning Board, the applicants and staff met to revise some of the conditions related to the trash enclosures. He advised that on page 4, the first sentence of Condition 12 should be deleted and substituted with, "The applicants shall comply with AMC Subsection 20-2.1, which currently requires the owner or occupant of any premise is to subscribe and pay for all integrated waste collection.. Mr. Tai advised that Condition 13 was revised to state that "the applicants shall comply with Section 21-2.1, which currently requires that collection of solid waste from residential areas... " The public hearing was opened. Mr. Chris Auxier, applicant, stated that they would be available to respond to questions. Mr. Michael Yoshii, Pastor, Buena Vista United Methodist Church, and Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, noted that he attended the West End Community Improvement Project. He noted that the mass evictions highlighted the need to coordinate the social impact on the community, with respect to the intent to make physical improvements in the neighborhood. He noted that the impact on the schools was very important, particularly regarding the anticipation of new residents and new students. He believed the community needed to be mended following these difficulties. Ms. Lorraine Lilly wished to address the human factors following the actions of the 15 Group and the Harbor Island apartment complex, and stated tha… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,20 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 20 | Ms. Modessa Henderson, 465 Buena Vista #105, spoke in opposition to this item and noted that she had lived at the site for 30 years. She inquired what kind of tenants would live at the complex, and stated that it had been a family-oriented complex. She believed that there was a great need for activities for children, if families were to return to the complex. She would like some design accommodations for the disabled, such as first-floor apartments. Ms. C. Landry, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that she had lived in Harbor Island for a number of years, and was displaced following the evictions. She believed the improvements were superficial, and believed the plumbing system and sprinklers should be fixed. She noted that several units had not been repaired following fires. President Cunningham requested a motion to extend the meeting to a time certain. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani whether this item could be continued to the following Board meeting, Mr. Brandt replied that if continued, the project would be deemed approved if no action were taken under the time limits of State law. M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to extend the meeting hours to 11:30 p.m. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Mr. Reginald James, 1501 Grand Street #E, expressed concern about the physical conditions of the site, and did not believe the site was up to code. He noted that one woman had been boarded up in her apartment. He was pleased to see an alternative to the valet garbage plan, and suggested that a half-court basketball court be installed. He believed the parking should be addressed more thoroughly, and would like to see a rooftop terrace; he expressed concern about the state of the fire sprinklers. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding how the ADA regulations related to this project, Mr. Shaun Alexander, project architect, replied that any existing project had issues to grapple with, and added that this project was exempt… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,21 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 21 | In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding recourse available to tenants if a property falls into disrepair (such as following a repair in an existing apartment), Mr. Brandt advised that would be a violation of the Housing Code. Mr. Alexander noted that many of the fires in recent history were the result of arson, not of electrical problems. Ms. Kohlstrand noted that she had difficulty reconciling the complaints of the residents with the statements that the buildings were up to Code. Mr. Brandt advised that there were extensive site visits to the property in November 2004. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani regarding the interior of the building, Mr. Alexander noted that they were in for permit for interior improvements on the project and that they must conform to all Alameda and State codes. Mr. Lynch believed the City was missing a tremendous opportunity to benefit many families in Alameda, and did not believe this was a Measure A issue. He noted that the remodel did not speak to possible physical changes that could provide a more live able environment to families, which he believed was a gross oversight by the City. Vice President Cook appreciated some of the changes made to the design in response to the Board's comments. She expressed concern that the use of architectural elements were not fully utilized to create more individuality in the buildings; some of the structures still looked monolithic. She noted that the use of entry pylons still connoted the gated effect, which she had opposed in the earlier sessions. She was still uncomfortable with the design, and did not believe sufficient changes had been made since December 2004. Ms. McNamara believed some of the wording in the staff report could be improved, and noted that page 4, Items 6 and 7, stated that "The applicant shall coordinate with the Police Department as an effort to try and improve public safety in the facility." She did not believe that wording held the applicant accountable for not complying, and believed that stronge… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,22 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 22 | Ms. McNamara wanted to ensure that the relationship between the Police Department and the applicant did benefit the citizens of Alameda, and would rebuild the credibility for public safety in that area. Mr. Tai advised that that condition stated that it would be to the "satisfaction to the Chief of Police and the Planning and Building Director," and there would be sufficient flexibility to require compliance on these recommendations. Mr. Lynch believed that Ms. McNamara referred to the property management aspects of this project. Ms. McNamara believed that staff's condition of approval requiring a landscape and common area maintenance agreement between the property owners and the City to ensure diligent maintenance should be an ongoing effort. She believed the ongoing maintenance of the property was critical to the success of the project and the surrounding area. President Cunningham suggested the addition of a maintenance agreement for the swimming pool, and believed that was central to the development. Mr. Tai advised that page 5 contained a condition relating to the landscape and common area maintenance agreement, which is recorded with the property at the County Recorder's office. The applicants would be required to maintain the property; if that did not happen, the City would have the right to make the improvements at the applicants' cost. The common area included the swimming pool, the proposed tot lots and other play areas, and all the other open space. Ms. Mariani noted that she was not prepared to approve this project. Ms. Kohlstrand believed that changing the approach towards trash containment was generally a good change, but that it was unfortunate to see the huge trash container at the end of the walkway near Fifth Street. She would like to see that container relocated to a less visible area. She believes that the project sponsor had made some compromises, and added that there were still residents in the complex. She believed it was extremely important to ensure the buildings were not in disrepair. Mr… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,23 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 23 | new commercial, industrial, or municipal project; because it only addressed the community center. He spoke with the City Attorney regarding Condition 27 ("hold harmless"), and understood that it meant that if the application were to be approved, and someone sued the City stating that the approval was wrong, the applicant would pay for the defense. That indemnification did not relate to any other issues not related to this approval. M/S Kohlstrand/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-09 to approve a Design Review and Planned Development for the construction of a two-story 6,000 square foot community building, four 16-car garages, facade changes to existing apartment buildings, and other improvements at the Harbor Island Apartments site. AYES - 4 (Piziali absent); NOES - 2 (Cook, Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 23 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,24 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 24 | 8-D. ZA05-0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide (JC/JA) Phase II of proposed revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance with respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side yard requirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for "replacement- in-kind", off-street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non-conforming residential structures. M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue Item 8-D to the Planning Board meeting of March 14, 2005. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 24 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,25 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 25 | 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice President Cook). M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of March 14, 2005. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook). M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of March 14, 2005. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of March 14, 2005. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani). M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of March 14, 2005. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 10. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: 11. ADJOURNMENT: 11:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary City Planning Department Planning Board Minutes Page 25 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,26 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 26 | These minutes were approved at the March 14, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 26 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-03 | 1 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting Monday, March 3, 2005 - 6:30 p.m. 1. CONVENE: 6:30 p.m. 2. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Mayor Beverly Johnson, President Andrew Cunningham and Chair Lee Perez welcomed everyone to the workshop. 3. ROLL CALL: Mayor Beverly Johnson, Andrew Cunningham, Anne Cook, Rebecca Kohlstrand, Lee Perez, Diane Lowenstein, Elizabeth Johnson. Also present were Andrew Thomas, Steven Proud, Project Manager, Jim Adams, ROMA Design Group, Walter Rask, ROMA Design Group, Frederick Knapp, Page & Turnbull, Melissa Boudreau, Page & Turnbull (Project Manager), Jim Musbach, Economic Planning Systems, Andrew Barnes, Economic Real Estate Consultant, Matthew Ridgeway, Fehr & Peers, Seleta Reynolds, Fehr & Peers, Peter Russell, Russell Resources. 4. PRESENTATION OF PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS FOR ALAMEDA POINT Mr. Andrew Thomas noted that ROMA Design Group would make a presentation, and public comment would be taken after the presentation. He noted that the results of the community discussions held at the previous two workshops were available on the City website. He noted that a Preliminary Draft Development Concept would be developed soon, based on a financially feasible development concept for the Base. Development alternatives would also be explored. He described the future timeline of the development and environmental review process, and encouraged public feedback regarding the information on the website. He encouraged residents to take advantage of the Base tours provided by the City. Mr. Walter Rask, ROMA Design Group, presented a PowerPoint presentation. 5. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION A community member noted that the O Club was a beautiful building that needed upgrading, and that it had historic value. He believed it was worth keeping, and believed the Big Whites were more trouble than they were worth. Mr. Thomas noted that the O Club served as a functioning social center in Alameda. A community member th… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-03 | 2 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board He inquired whether a constrained view of the economic viability of the project was being presented. Mr. Stephen Proud noted that they were concentrating on the Phase I plan, but that there was flexibility in the later phases. The timing of the property delivery was an important part of the economic analysis. A community member favored the non-Measure A-compliant options, and believed that increasing the density and value of the options would be positive. He inquired about the effect of the number of parkland acreage on the acres-per-thousand-population. He inquired about the $22 million deficit. Mr. Thomas noted that the Citywide analysis had not been performed, although a similar open space analysis in the 2003 General Plan Amendment EIR had been performed. Mr. Proud noted that there was no $22 million slush fund attached to the project, and explained the expenditures needed to service the project. A community member appreciated the contrasts between the Measure A and non- Measure A options. She favored seamless integration, vibrant new neighborhoods, establishing neighborhood centers, and did not see those items in either options. She would like to see a design that worked with the mitigations that would also be economically feasible. She did not believe that Phase I followed good planning principles, and was disappointed in the design. A community member thanked staff for the illustrations of how the project would look if Measure A was modified. She preferred single-story residence designs. Mr. Proud noted that the City would acquire all the buildings when the Navy completes the ownership transfer; they are currently being leased, which is the chief source of revenue to offset the costs. A community member inquired about the time lag between property expenses and property sales, and how the money was made up. Mr. Proud noted that was the reason for having a Master Developer, who was responsible for putting in the backbone infrastruc… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-03 | 3 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board A community member inquired about the Phase I development, and the housing density in that phase. She inquired whether there would be any innovative or eco-friendly architecture. Mr. Walter Rask noted that the density would be approximately 12 units per acre, which was roughly comparable to Bayport. He noted that there would be no walls, and that the blocks would be exterior-oriented; there would be no gated portions of the neighborhood. The buildings would feel very public and friendly in nature. There was an overall goal of the project to achieve sustainability objectives; green building measures and recycling would be used. A community member supported retaining the Enlisted Men's Quarters, and believed that turning them into condos may bring more diverse populations into Alameda. She inquired about the contamination on sites for non-Measure A and commercial uses. Mr. Rask displayed the mixed use areas, and noted that conventional housing would not be possible in that area if there was groundwater contamination. A community member inquired about the groundwater and soil contamination, and suggested that those areas not be developed until the contamination was cleaned up. Mr. Russell noted that the contamination in the Phase I area was relatively minor, and described its nature in detail. A non-Measure A-compliant design would allow for podium parking on the ground, with the residences on top; the chemicals would never reach the residences. Among the chemicals were dry cleaning solvent, nail polish remover, gasoline. A community member inquired whether PAHs were in the ground water. Mr. Thomas replied that they were not water-soluble and were not a groundwater issue. A community member inquired about how malleable the wildlife refuse was to being moved. Mr. Proud noted that the issue of wildlife transfer is an issue of property transfer between agencies, to the Veterans Administration rather than Fish & Wildlife. A community member no… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-03 | 4 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board A community member inquired what kind of planning overview was used to create community activity hubs, and did not see those hubs in this plan. Mr. Adams described the 1400 housing units, and noted that a series of smaller retail center could not be supported. Mr. Christopher Buckley noted that there was an assumption that the grade must be raised due to the 100-year flood, and suggested the use of a levee. He inquired how 115,000 square feet of retail was derived, and how much of the anticipated retail demand from the residential uses would be absorbed by that retail. Mr. Thomas noted that the levee question was examined, and that they decided to raise the level instead, rather than create a seawall along the edge of the site. He noted that would create a visual barrier to the water. Mr. Proud noted that they had to compact the bay mud to accept more load. Mr. Rask noted that they did not wish to overbuild the retail spaces, nor did they wish to cannibalize other retail areas in Alameda. A community member noted that the new residents would also need libraries, schools and youth centers, and inquired where they were included in the plan. Mr. Thomas replied that community centers were programmed into the project, including the O Club and the original Navy Mess Hall. Police and fire services were included in the financial pro forma, as well as a small library. He noted that once the planning became more solidified, they would address the impact on the school district in more detail. A community member noted that the Big Whites would involve an expensive process, and inquired why they were included in the non-Measure A option if they would handicap the option. Mr. Rask noted that they had not reconciled all the elements of that plan yet, and they were working with the first version of the financial details. A community member noted that she was recently appointed to the HAB, and had taken the tour, which she believed was very illuminating… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-03 | 5 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board Mr. Adams noted that several sites were identified for being suitable for churches, and pointed them out on the site plan. A community member thanked staff for exploring Measure A and mixed use possibilities. He expressed concern about the phrase "less clean housing," and took offense to the concept and the language. Mr. Proud reassured the audience that that wording was not intended to cause offense, and described the Restoration Advisory Board's role in site remediation. He added that they did not blindly follow the Navy's directives. He noted that part of the cleanup process may be privatized, and that unsuitable sites would not be used to residential reuse. Mr. Adams noted that lead paint had historically been used at Alameda Point, and that demolition of such buildings and remediation was very closely regulated. He noted that lead was not easily water-soluble, and that it could easily be scraped from the surface of the soil. A community member inquired how they determined the value from the sale of the land. Mr. Proud described how the residential land values were determined, and added that the master plan developer was instrumental in that determination. Mr. Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope, inquired why the $54 million for the affordable housing component was a public cost, and believed that should be the developer's responsibility. Mr. Thomas noted that was a developer cost and part of the overall financing of the project. Mr. Rask noted that it was a project cost, not a public cost. A community member inquired about the different traffic scenarios and whether the cost of traffic was figured into the project costs; he inquired whether the low traffic scenario would lead to increased savings. He inquired whether any information was available on the price ranges for the market-rate units. Mr. Rask noted that the typical single- and multi-family house trip generation analysis was used. Mr. Bill Smith noted that he had information about a… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-03 | 6 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board required by law would be provided, or if more would be provided. She inquired about Mr. Adams' definition of "eco-friendly." She recalled Mr. Proud's comments about landfill on the flood plain, and whether that would be eco-friendly. Mr. Thomas noted that the actual affordable housing breakdown would be provided at the next workshop. Mr. Adams noted that much work must still be done in terms of defining the standards that will be put in place for green building and eco-friendly design. He noted that this piece of land was being recycled, and that they were exploring the idea of transit-oriented development. Their goal was to create a development that would depend on transportation means other than the automobile. He noted that the standards for building materials and energy use were still being developed. Ms. Eve Bach inquired whether there was an assumed reduced income expectation on the affordable housing, and whether that amount to a double accounting. Mr. Rask replied that it was shown as a cost because the revenues do not cover the cost of building the unit. He noted that they were being sold for less than what they cost. Ms. Bach inquired about the estimated acreage and cost of parking would be, and whether the supporting studies would be available online. Mr. Adams, ROMA, replied that there was a vast amount of information, and noted that requests for backup information could be made at his email address. He noted that the project required parking for the viability of each land use was used in the analysis. Each unit had its own parking, whether in garages or parking structures. A community member inquired whether institutional controls and land use restrictions would be attached to Phase I. He found it difficult to believe that the impact to the school district was not included. Mr. Peter Russell replied that Alameda's Marsh Crust Ordinance already applied to all of Alameda Point. There may be additional institutional controls i… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-03 | 7 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board A community member inquired whether there would be any further delay in the transfer of the Base, and noted that in 1997, the Big Whites were sold to them as a major part of the project. He believed the project was too packed together, and added that he had served on the Base during his military career. He was shocked at the state of several historic buildings that had been vandalized before the property was taken over. Mr. Proud noted that the delay in the conveyance would have a significant impact on project economics. They had worked very cooperatively with the Navy with respect to Alameda Point, and their open approach during negotiations would be beneficial to the conveyance transfer. A community member inquired whether the 1% for public art was included in the overall cost. Mr. Thomas indicated that it was. A community member expressed concern about the middle-income units, and noted that the Warmington Homes were no longer middle-income homes. Ms. Lucy Gigli inquired about the comparison of the value of the difference properties on the site. She expressed concern that the multifamily units were all bunched together, which increased the density of those blocks. She would like to see pockets of multifamily housing, as well as an evaluation of the mixing of the retail uses, and noted that Bayport and Coast Guard Island don't have any corner stores or cafes. Mr. Thomas noted that there were combination duplex/small retail possibilities. A community member inquired what an in-law unit was. Mr. Thomas replied that it was a small unit on the same lot, usually a loft or one-bedroom unit. She suggested that the name be changed because in-law unit implied a non-approved unit. Mr. Thomas noted that the in-law terminology would be changed to "secondary unit.' PUBLIC COMMENT WAS CLOSED. President Cunningham noted that it was important to clearly identify the goals of the land use, and that there were some misunderstandings about the use. He s… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-03 | 8 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board Ms. Konrad expressed concern that the Community Reuse Plan and the General Plan both call for walkable neighborhoods on Alameda Point, and did not see that in this plan. She believed that neighborhood centers should be developed so residents could walk to them. She believed the open space should be usable. Mr. Lee Perez thanked the audience for their comments, and noted that the web page contained a great deal of information on the project. He encouraged the residents to remain proactive in communicating with staff and commissioners during this process. Mr. Thomas invited additional public comments to be addressed to the City by phone, mail or email. He noted that the entire presentation and maps would be posted on the website. He noted that the Navy always attended the RAB meetings. 6. ADJOURNMENT: 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary City Planning Department These minutes were approved at the April 11, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. G:\PLANNING\PB\Agendas_Minutes\Minutes.05\March 3_Spec.dod Planning Board Minutes Page 8 March 3, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 1 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Monday, March 14, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CONVENE: 7:05 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Ms. McNamara 3. ROLL CALL: President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, and McNamara. Board members Lynch, Mariani and Piziali were absent. Also present were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner III David Valeska, Leslie Little, Development Services. 4. MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of February 28, 2005. Mr. Cormack advised that staff distributed revised pages of the minutes to the Board; page 3, Item 7- A reflected the change of number of parcels from nine to 16 parcels. Pages 19 and 20 contained corrected wording for the motions to more accurately reflect the Board's intentions. M/S McNamara/Cook and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 28, 2005, as presented. AYES - 4 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION None. Mr. Sam Caponio, 1316 Hanson Street, expressed concern about the limited ingress and egress from the Island and the state of the infrastructure. He noted that the traffic congestion had been serious for some time, and would like to see the issue of Island access and infrastructure be agendized for Board discussion. President Cunningham noted that there would be a Transportation Commission public hearing on March 23, 2005. Planning Board Minutes Page 1 March 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 2 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. TM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests approval of Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into nine parcels. The parcels are located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of January 24, 2005.) President Cunningham advised that the applicant requested continuance of this item, and that the motion from the last meeting must be rescinded because it did not reflect the applicant's request of the City. Mr. Cormack advised that the item was readvertised for this meeting. M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to rescind the prior action taken by the Planning Board at the meeting of February 28, 2005, and to continue this item to the meeting of March 28, 2005. AYES - 4 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 2 March 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 3 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-A. Study Session Theater (DSD/JA). Study Session to review revisions for Design Guidelines to construct a new 7-screen Cineplex and 352-space parking structure on the Video Maniac site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC - CCPD, Community Commercial and Special Planned Development Districts. (Continued from the meeting of February 28, 2005.) Ms. Kohlstrand advised that she would recuse herself from this item because she was a principal with the firm of EnviroTrans Solutions, which prepared the traffic analysis for the combined parking garage/theater analysis. Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services, advised that with Ms. Kohlstrand's absence from the discussion, there would not be sufficient Board members to act on this item at this time. Ms. Cormack advised that because Mr. Lynch had not yet arrived, there would not be quorum for this item, and suggested that Item 8-B be heard before Item 8-A. President Cunningham advised that public testimony would be heard, and that no action would be taken by the Board. The item would be heard by City Council on Tuesday, March 15, 2005. Ms. Little provided a status update on the theatre design following the last public testimony and Board comments. She noted that concerned parties would like the word "contemporary" to be removed from any description of the building; the balance of the definition came from the Secretary of the Interior's standards, including the word "contemporary." Item C-3 specified a general vertical emphasis, and she did not believe that there was community consensus regarding that design element. Item C-4 addressed the lobby projection on the second floor, and she believed that element has engaged people's imaginations about the additional activity at the theater. Other issues included studying the public space along Oak Street, widening the sidewalks; public parking and a bike route would be accommodated along the street. Bike r… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 4 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board Mr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, noted that he was not speaking for the AAPS at this time, and noted that Oak Street was very narrow. He believed that Oak Street was overloaded with pedestrians and bicycle traffic, and that the traffic on Oak Street would become more congested. He suggested that the City pick up an underdeveloped strip of land from Video Maniacs to Santa Clara in order to widen the public right-of-way on the street. Mr. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that they submitted comments to the Board and summarized the significant issues. He did not want the design to be too modernistic. Regarding his discussion with Cynthia Eliason regarding the Secretary of Interior standards, Ms. Eliason raised the question whether the Cineplex and the parking garage were actually subject to those standards; she would check with the City Attorney regarding that question. He suggested that all references to those standards be deleted. He suggested that the reference to the 20-inch projection continue to be deleted in the document. AAPS believed the upper-level lobby was a potentially intrusive element that would upstage and block views of the historic theater. He suggested that the sidewalk be at least 12 feet wide. He noted that Attachment 3 addressed a parking garage in Stanton, Virginia, and would be a good model for the subject garage. Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments. He would like Oak Street to be changed into a pedestrian mall by removing the parking; this would be necessary for bike safety. He supported lockable bike lockers in the garage, Ms. McNamara left the meeting at this time. Ms. Elizabeth Krase, 2520 Chester Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that the Secretary of Interior's standards applied to the Cineplex, but not the garage. She believed the projections on Central Street did not comply with those standards. She believed the r… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 5 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board progress on the project. Vice President Cook agreed, and would like the architecture team to solve the issues of the projections. She agreed with Ms. Krase that the rosette was very important. She would like more information on the view impact of the projection. She did not favor design by committee, which would result in a hodge-podge design. No action was taken. Planning Board Minutes Page 5 March 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 6 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board 8-B. ZA05-0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide (JC/JA) Phase II of proposed revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance with respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side yard requirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for "replacement-in- kind", off-street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non-conforming residential structures. (Continued from the meeting of February 28, 2005.) Mr. Cormack advised that this item had been before the Board previously when Phase I of the Development Code revisions were reviewed. Five items were deferred to Phase II at that time. He noted that before the Phase II items were taken before the City Council, a Customer Service Committee for the Permit Center had been organized; they identified the Code Amendments as being important and requested time to address the Board. The parking issue would be the primary focus; the Mayor suggested that tandem parking be examined during Phase II review. He advised that Council had not yet seen the Board's previous recommendations on Phase II. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, advised that the Customer Service Improvement Group included two AAPS members who had submitted comments. AAPS requested that the changes be amended to modify the off-street parking requirements for single-family houses only to allow any parking, including tandem parking within the first 20 feet of existing driveways, as measured from the front property line. Such parking is currently prohibited, but rarely enforced. The second change requested by AAPS is to delete the existing required one- to five-foot-wide landscaping strips between driveways and property lines, fences, buildings and street… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 7 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board He requested that wording be changed to extend the time from six months from the date of destruction to be completed within one year of a permit being issued. He noted that homeowners who had suffered a catastrophic loss due to fire or flood need additional time to settle with the insurance company and obtain funding for rebuilding. Responding to Ms. Kohlstrand's request, he explained the structural implications of the (k) & (1) findings as it relates to this item. President Cunningham believed that the (k) & (1) findings advocate a two-foot setback. Mr. Cormack advised that the Board's previous recommendation to the City Council under this proposal was to still require the 7'-0" setback for the second floor and two-story structures. Mr. Calpestri noted that he did not agree with that. Mr. Ken Gutleben, 3021 Thompson, spoke in support of the two proposed amendments to the Zoning and Development Standards, particularly with respect to the building height definitions. He believed this change would encourage residents to retrofit and strengthen their older homes, replace foundations and install basements. He supported the Building Department's Customer Service Committee's proposed amendment regarding residential parking. He offered examples of the problems associated with the current ordinance, and believed that it obstructed retrofits that could improve the seismic and structural safety of Alameda's older homes. He noted that the hazardous Hayward Fault was the closest fault to Alameda. He requested that the Board reconsider the priority given to cars and parking over retrofitting and protecting Alameda's architectural heritage and its citizens. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham whether Mr. Calpestri's letter regarding the time frame prior to rebuilding was within the Board's purview for discussion, Mr. Cormack advised that this item would have to be advertised for public… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 8 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board Mr. Cormack inquired whether the Board would consider amending the section of the Code which required two additional feet of sideyard for two stories. The five-foot minimum sideyard for one story could also be the standard for a two-story building. Anything less than five feet that was nonconforming would be allowed to use the (k) & (1). Vice President Cook believed that a conforming sideyard that is to be built higher is not as much of a problem as a nonconforming sideyard to be increased in height, which would create a very narrow setback; the additional setback would allow adequate light at the property line. Ms. Altschuler stated that would allow for the shading study to prove whether or not the second story would impact the neighbors. Ms. Kohlstrand would like the setback requirements to be more equitable, and would support a second-story setback that matched the first-story setback. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding shading, Ms. Altschuler replied that shading would not be as critical for a bathroom as for a living room. She noted that design solutions were available to neighbors to mitigate shading effects. A house with a conforming setback would not require shadow studies. She added that staff would create a summary of the Board comments to be included the next time the Development Code is examined. She noted that most (k) & (1) issues brought before staff were generally resolved equitably between the neighbors, and she expected that trend to continue; very few issues have been brought before the Board. The Board had no concerns regarding Building Height Limits and the Definition of Replacement-in- Kind. Regarding parking, Ms. McNamara did not support deleting the 20-foot parking restriction requirement, but was open to reducing it to a 10-foot requirement in order to increase parking. President Cunningham advised that he advocated tandem parking, and believed it would relieve the City's parking pressure… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 9 | is appropriate, which he believed was onerous. He believed that a one-foot strip was sufficient. M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt the Building Height Limits, and the Definition of Replacement-in-Kind as recommended by staff. The remaining items would be brought back to the Planning Board after further review by the Customer Service Committee. AYES - 4 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Ms. Kohlstrand left the meeting after Item 8-B. Planning Board Minutes Page 9 March 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 10 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice President Cook). b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Board Member Piziali was not in attendance to present this report. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. 10. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: 11. ADJOURNMENT: 9:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary City Planning Department These minutes were approved at the March 28, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. G:\PLANNING\PB\Agendas_Minutes\Minutes.05\March 14_Minutes.DO Planning Board Minutes Page 10 March 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-28 | 1 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Monday, March 28, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CONVENE: 7:01 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Ms. Mariani 3. ROLL CALL: President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Mariani, and Piziali. Board members Lynch, Kohlstrand, and McNamara were absent. Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner III Allen Tai, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Jennifer Ott, Development Services. 4. MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of March 14, 2005. Ms. Altschuler advised that there was not a quorum to approve these minutes, and suggested continuing this item to the Planning Board meeting of April 11, 2005. 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: President Cunningham advised that speaker slips had been received for Item 7-b. M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-b from the Consent Calendar and place it on the Regular Agenda. AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 President Cunningham advised that speaker slips had been received for Item 7-a. M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-a from the Consent Calendar and place it on the Regular Agenda. AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION None. Planning Board Minutes Page 1 March 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-28 | 2 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: None. 7-A. Use Permit UP05-0003 1510 Encinal Avenue Applicant: Tali Risse/ Fuzzy Caterpillar Preschool (AT). The applicants request Use Permit approval to operate a daycare center with capacity for forty-five students and eight employees with hours of operation between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The site was previously occupied by the Peter Pan Preschool between 1974- 2002 and is located at 1510 Encinal Avenue, within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential District. M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-a from the Consent Calendar and place it on the Regular Agenda. AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Mr. Tai presented the staff report. In order to reduce congestion related to pickup and dropoff, staff recommended a condition of approval which would required the applicants to coordinate with the Public Works Department to devise a schedule for dropoff and pickup. There would be a six-month monitoring period by staff. The public hearing was opened. Mr. John Faris, 1417 San Antonio Avenue, noted that he had been a neighbor of the subject site for nine years, and expressed concern about the larger scale of the proposed project and its effect on parking in the neighborhood. Ms. Sharon Barnhart, 1413 San Antonio, noted that she lived directly behind the school and wished to ensure there would be no construction changes in the area. She requested that the same summertime hours were kept, as well as a two-hour quiet time as was practiced by the Peter Pan Day Care. She noted that the caregivers were the noisiest element of the Peter Pan use. Mr. Arie Cohen, applicant, introduced Ms. Tali Cohen and Ms. Julie Cohen, the directors of the school. He noted that Code allowed a maximum of 45 children, but they did not expect to have more than 40 children on-site; they intended to keep a smaller child-to-teacher ratio than required. They planned to implement a two-hour quiet time, and keep the opera… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-28 | 3 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 05- to approve a Use Permit to operate a daycare center with capacity for forty-five students and eight employees with hours of operation between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with the following modifications: 1. The enrollment would be restricted to 40 children; and 2. A two-hour quiet time would be implemented daily. AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 March 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-28 | 4 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board 7-B. Interim Use Permit UP05-0001: Antiques Fair (Auto Show and Auto Parts Fair), Gerald Goldman, 2001 Ferry Point (near Seaplane Lagoon site), Alameda Point (DB). The applicant requests an Interim Use Permit to allow vintage auto and motorcycle sales at Alameda Point, for autos manufactured in 1975 or earlier, parts and memorabilia with substantially the same size, scale, access, parking and conditions/requirements as the Antiques Fair. Operation would occur one Sunday per month plus setup and teardown times. This use would include approximately 2,000 booths, 7,000 on-site parking spaces, over 40 acres near former Navy hangers, Bladium and other Alameda Point neighbors. The site is located in the M-2-G (General Industry/Manufacturing Zoning District/Government Combining District). Mr. Brighton summarized the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Gerald Goldman, applicant, noted that the Antiques Fair had become nationally renowned, and had brought significant business and sales tax revenue to the City. He noted that this proposed event was a clone of the very large Pasadena Swap Meet. Mr. Piziali noted that he supported the Antiques Fair, and wished to support this item as well; he would like to include the following language: "Beer may only be sold subject to approval of the Alameda Police Department, and subject to issuance of the required ABC licenses." Mr. Goldman agreed with that request, and noted that while they were not committed to selling beer, they wanted to allow for it if so desired. Mr. Piziali expressed concern about amplified sound. Mr. Goldman noted that they did not have a public address system at the Antiques Fair, and the staff members communicated by two-way radio. Two police officers would be on-site. In response to Mr. Piziali's question about overnight parking on-site, Ms. Altschuler replied that the vehicles would be parked on the taxiway. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali regarding parking fe… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-28 | 5 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 05- to approve an Interim Use Permit to allow vintage auto and motorcycle sales at Alameda Point, for autos manufactured in 1975 or earlier, parts and memorabilia with substantially the same size, scale, access, parking and conditions/requirements as the Antiques Fair. Operation would occur one Sunday per month plus setup and teardown times. This use would include approximately 2,000 booths, 7,000 on- site parking spaces, over 40 acres near former Navy hangers, Bladium and other Alameda Point neighbors. The language regarding a start time of 4 a.m. instead of 2 a.m. would be changed in the conditions of approval. AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 5 March 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );